__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Either way doesn't the media have an obligation to not push forward unsubstantiated claims by upstart scientists with apocalyptic visions?*
*Points to anyone who gets the reference
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Excuse the delay, didn't have time to watch until now. Her #1 point starts at 06:38 and ends at 08:33.
Jaden is correct in his assessment of her #1 point, as she made at lot claims about climate change predictions being peddled, claimed it wasn't just politicians, but climate scientist, but did not drop a single scientific name backing a prediction to back up her assertions. Zero. eg The "12 years we're doomed" came from AOC; she is not a climate scientist, this was dropped twice in less than two minutes by her to prove her points.
There's literally an example of what I'm saying in first video I posted.
A scientist can make a prediction but if it's not based on anything more than their own opinion then it's not a scientific prediction, is it?
And that's one of the things that she does in her video. The others are equating media reports and what she calls "criers" as being scientific predictions.
Again there's literally examples in the video I posted if how exactly that is carried out. Namely Steven Crowder attacking scientists over predictions about water levels in the Great lakes. He claimed "scientists predicted" that the water levels would drop.and take decades to recover. Turned out it was a politician that said it. Turned out the scientists predicted exactly what was happening.
__________________ Sweating on the streets of Woking
It's still a prediction, it's just a prediction based on their opinion.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
We are agreed that you were wrong about a prediction magically becoming something else if it can't be backed up.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
__________________ Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth bound feathered dinosaur. But it is not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.-- Alan Feduccia-a world authority on birds, quoted in "Archaeopteryx:Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms," Science 1994, p.764-765
__________________ Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth bound feathered dinosaur. But it is not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.-- Alan Feduccia-a world authority on birds, quoted in "Archaeopteryx:Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms," Science 1994, p.764-765
Yet she couldn't spare all of 20 seconds to drop a single scientific name who made a given climate change prediction that was backed via review; which proved to be false to support her claims? Odd, cos she had time to drop Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "12 years" claim, not once, but twice as proof. She's also an outright liar at times.
Disagreed, Jaden's point has remained the same from the start; he has backed it with multiple examples.
Why? Why would she put that out there when this stuff is easily searchable in a few seconds? Why single out one among hundreds?
It's a bit immature to do that type of mudslinging and she has 10 points to get through. If she wanted to give a presentation only on 1, they already exist and people present on it. Multiple exist if you're interested where those papers and prediction are taken apart, piece by piece.
Very few people have been as directly and overtly wrong as Jaden and I caught him moving the goalposts: it's obvious.
This is not debatable. But I think you're doing that troll thing you do to Surtur because he's stupid enough to respond for pages where no meaningful conversation takes place.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 16th, 2019 10:54 PM
