Hey RT fuck bois

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan Gleesak
  • Start date Start date
Aynirar27 said:
A healthy dose of distrust towards a government is healthy, and sure the “global boiling” headlines are stupid, but I think people owe it to themselves as intelligent beings to look past that and learn about the source info, because it is more often than not, irrefutable data
Click to expand...
Irrefutable data maybe, but refutable interpretations IMHO.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the trustworthiness of peer-reviewed publications. :dunno:
 
Aynirar27 said:
Oh fuck, are you implying it will be as along as people have been trying to “nail the the tone”?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying I give zero fucks about you, and all the bullshit you spew here because anytime you see me posting here, I have a guitar in my hands and I'm playing.

:ROFLMAO:
 
Arch Stanton said:
No, I'm saying I give zero fucks about you, and all the bullshit you spew here because anytime you see me posting here, I have a guitar in my hands and I'm playing.

:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Then why do you include yourself in every single thread I start? Lol
Every time, the same group of nitwits come in with nothing to offer, say the same shit and roll their eyes when I respond the same as I have the dozens of times before.
It’s not normal man. If you don’t like what I have to say, it’s very simple to not have to hear it. There are I plenty of off piste ignorant ass threads for you to feel very at home in.

A good start would be to not tag me in a thread I wasn’t even participating in to begin with lol
 
Aynirar27 said:
Then why do you include yourself in every single thread I start? Lol
Every time, the same group of nitwits come in with nothing to offer, say the same shit and roll their eyes when I respond the same as I have the dozens of times before.
It’s not normal man. If you don’t like what I have to say, it’s very simple to not have to hear it. There are I plenty of off piste ignorant ass threads for you to feel very at home in.

A good start would be to not tag me in a thread I wasn’t even participating in to begin with lol
Click to expand...
Bro.. :ROFLMAO:

There's like 3 active posters here.

Pull yore head outta your ass.
 
Monkey Man said:
Irrefutable data maybe, but refutable interpretations IMHO.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the trustworthiness of peer-reviewed publications. :dunno:
Click to expand...
But when do you think that started? Do you think it’s something new?

It’s why I brought up scientists from the 1800s and early 1900s whose research is still relevant today on this topic. I don’t think WEF was paying off some dude in 1860 Sweden to discover the concept of Greenhouse gases ya know?
 
Arch Stanton said:
Bro.. :ROFLMAO:

There's like 3 active posters here.

Pull yore head outta your ass.
Click to expand...
The why are even here man? If you think only 3 people post here, and one of them you can’t stand, what are doing? Lol
It’s like waking up every morning, smashing your balls with a hammer and thinking “ah fuck I hate mornings man”
 
Aynirar27 said:
The why are even here man? If you think only 3 people post here, and one of them you can’t stand, what are doing? Lol
It’s like waking up every morning, smashing your balls with a hammer and think “ah fuck I hate mornings man”
Click to expand...
This..

This right here is the payoff.

:rawk:
 
giphy.gif
 
@Monkey Man and I should add, I do agree that “peer review” isn’t always on the up and up. It can certainly be used as a buzzword. Personally I take every covid study with a grain of salt. It’s too new and the numbers aren’t accurate. Science of course is all about doing the best with what you got, but for me personally, I’m not on board with it yet.

But to bring it back around, climate studies are old hat by now.
Even something like core sampling, while not always “peer reviewed” in the sense of retesting samples, the information is formed from scientists all over the world gathering data. There isn’t an “office of core sampling” that everything funnels through. Many countries and organizations do these tests and when they all come up with similar results independently, it’s a safe bet that they are accurate.
I don’t think a lot of people realize how much scrutiny MOST things go through before being published.
Of course social media has made this more difficult because anyone with a Twitter account and post whatever they want, but I try not to let that leave me jaded to the real work being done out there.
 
Aynirar27 said:
@Monkey Man and I should add, I do agree that “peer review” isn’t always on the up and up. It can certainly be used as a buzzword. Personally I take every covid study with a grain of salt. It’s too new and the numbers aren’t accurate. Science of course is all about doing the best with what you got, but for me personally, I’m not on board with it yet.

But to bring it back around, climate studies are old hat by now.
Even something like core sampling, while not always “peer reviewed” in the sense of retesting samples, the information is formed from scientists all over the world gathering data. There isn’t an “office of core sampling” that everything funnels through. Many countries and organizations do these tests and when they all come up with similar results independently, it’s a safe bet that they are accurate.
I don’t think a lot of people realize how much scrutiny MOST things go through before being published.
Of course social media has made this more difficult because anyone with a Twitter account and post whatever they want, but I try not to let that leave me jaded to the real work being done out there.
Click to expand...
Aw, this all sounds like you just need another Pfizer fix, my man.

? ? ? ? ?
 
Aynirar27 said:
They are still instrumental to the scientific process though. Atmospheric studies have going on for a very long time and have been done by probably thousands of different people from different countries with different backgrounds.
To me the danger is headlines. So many opinions are formed by them.
Just like the vaccine thread I was tagged in earlier. No one in it can even explain the results to me but they sure are up in arms about it.
Same thing happens on the other end of things. I see countless “new earthlike planet found!” Or “”possible signs of life” blah blah, none of it is confirmed or peer reviewed. It’s important to read up on stuff, which in the he case of global conditions, I feel like I have, for fun and from my education.
Click to expand...
The scientific process is a bunch of shit people trot out when they can't explain why all their THEORIES don't hold water.
 
Aynirar27 said:
But when do you think that started? Do you think it’s something new?

It’s why I brought up scientists from the 1800s and early 1900s whose research is still relevant today on this topic. I don’t think WEF was paying off some dude in 1860 Sweden to discover the concept of Greenhouse gases ya know?
Click to expand...

I don't think most people have an issue with greenhouse gas science or the general idea of reducing CO2. Just like most people don't think giant corporations dumping their toxic bullshit in all the rivers and lakes should be allowed. The problem is when you have a fucked up government and fucked up retarded children and ex vice presidents trying to scare the shit out of people ( and succeeding with the dumbasses) by telling them the polar bears are going extinct, we have 12 years left before the shit hits the fan, it's the hottest year in history, blaming every god damn natural disaster or heat wave on global warming and passing legislation that will fucking destroy the economy ( and disproportionately effect poor and black people) in the name of saving the planet while simultaneously flying around the world, sticking their nose in other people's wars and business, taxing the living fuck out of all of us, doubling the price of the god damn groceries and gas and telling us we all have to sacrifice to save the environment. Sorry for the run on sentence.

In short, it's like the gun control argument. If the fucking shit they're saying is true, then why do they have to make up all the lies to try to convince people ?
 
Floyd Eye said:
The scientific process is a bunch of shit people trot out when they can't explain why all their THEORIES don't hold water.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense man.
Also there is a stark difference between theory and theorem and unfortunately they are often used interchangeably.
 
Floyd Eye said:
I don't think most people have an issue with greenhouse gas science or the general idea of reducing CO2. Just like most people don't think giant corporations dumping their toxic bullshit in all the rivers and lakes should be allowed. The problem is when you have a fucked up government and fucked up retarded children and ex vice presidents trying to scare the shit out of people ( and succeeding with the dumbasses) by telling them the polar bears are going extinct, we have 12 years left before the shit hits the fan, it's the hottest year in history, blaming every god damn natural disaster or heat wave on global warming and passing legislation that will fucking destroy the economy ( and disproportionately effect poor and black people) in the name of saving the planet while simultaneously flying around the world, sticking their nose in other people's wars and business, taxing the living fuck out of all of us, doubling the price of the god damn groceries and gas and telling us we all have to sacrifice to save the environment. Sorry for the run on sentence.

In short, it's like the gun control argument. If the fucking shit they're saying is true, then why do they have to make up all the lies to try to convince people ?
Click to expand...
I agree with that man. That’s why I preach to ignore the headlines. Unfortunately for me, every time I say that, people come at me with more dopey headlines
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top