Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: ...has a liberal bias... So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk - - - Yup. How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"? Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media. Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree. Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group. Sheesh. Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion". There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when compared to cyclic, natural causes. Point is, nobody really knows for sure. What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists. There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject. |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote: On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: ...has a liberal bias... So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk - - - Yup. How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"? Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media. Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree. Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group. Sheesh. Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion". There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when compared to cyclic, natural causes. Point is, nobody really knows for sure. What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists. There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject. Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is... Oh ... geeze ... here we go again. |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/4/15 1:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote: On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: ...has a liberal bias... So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk - - - Yup. How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"? Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media. Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree. Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group. Sheesh. Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion". There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when compared to cyclic, natural causes. Point is, nobody really knows for sure. What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists. There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject. Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is... Oh ... geeze ... here we go again. Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do? No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer: Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming. Next? |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote: On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: ...has a liberal bias... So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk - - - Yup. How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"? Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media. Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree. Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group. Sheesh. Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion". There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when compared to cyclic, natural causes. Point is, nobody really knows for sure. What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists. There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject. Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is... Oh ... geeze ... here we go again. Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do? No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer: Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming. Next? And that tenure will protect research grants? |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/4/2015 1:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 1:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote: On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: ...has a liberal bias... So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk - - - Yup. How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"? Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media. Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree. Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group. Sheesh. Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion". There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when compared to cyclic, natural causes. Point is, nobody really knows for sure. What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists. There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject. Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is... Oh ... geeze ... here we go again. Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do? No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer: Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming. Next? And that tenure will protect research grants? One of the attributes used to be considered for tenure status is the ability to secure research grants. |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/4/2015 1:42 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote: On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: ...has a liberal bias... So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk - - - Yup. How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"? Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media. Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree. Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group. Sheesh. Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion". There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when compared to cyclic, natural causes. Point is, nobody really knows for sure. What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists. There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject. Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is... Oh ... geeze ... here we go again. Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do? No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer: Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming. Next? Tenure protects teachers run amok. Why is that a good thing? |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Justan Olphart wrote:
On 11/4/2015 1:42 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 1:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote: On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: ...has a liberal bias... So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk - - - Yup. How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"? Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media. Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree. Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group. Sheesh. Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion". There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when compared to cyclic, natural causes. Point is, nobody really knows for sure. What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists. There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject. Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is... Oh ... geeze ... here we go again. Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do? No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer: Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming. Next? Tenure protects teachers run amok. Why is that a good thing? Friend who is a retired teacher said there should be tenure or union. Not both. |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:42:53 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do? No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer: Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming. Next? That is a great fairy tale and it might protect incompetent or child molesting teachers but if you are endangering federal grants or going against the grain of the administration, you will be gone one way or another. They might not fire you but you will not be working on much. |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The real world of Sarah Palin | General | |||
Congrats, good luck, and welcome to the real world | General | |||
Fast Boats and the REAL WORLD | ASA | |||
Which canoe is faster in the real world | General | |||
Back to the real world | ASA |