The problem with the modern conservative movement, Christianists.

[taxed]

I have posted a link. It responds to deniers three ways, a simple, an intermediate and an advanced.

Check it out again. .. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

This does not provide evidence.  It is proven to be fake.

One more time, prove your 97% assertion.

[taxed]

I am liberal in the traditional sense of the word. I'm in favor of liberty.


If a group of citizens are requesting something,  their request must be considered.

With respect to gay marriage, I cannot think of one single detrimental outcome for anyone. I can see how allowing it will help those currently prohibited. 

If any of you can explain to me a good reason to disallow same sex marriage,  I'll gladly oppose it. To this point, all I've heard is eww, sin, and tradition.

In my book, that isn't enough.  You need to display how this would harm others,  allowing people to marry who they want.

I usually frame my position in this as "I don't oppose" gay marriage.  I'm not an activist for the cause, either way.

Fixed it for you.

[Solar]

Fixed it for you.

The troll now claims Classic liberal?
What's next, the Constitution was written by old racist white men and needs to be thrown out?

[taxed]

The troll now claims Classic liberal?
What's next, the Constitution was written by old racist white men and needs to be thrown out?

He got caught using a debunked study and is trying to weasel out of it.

[Solar]

He got caught using a debunked study and is trying to weasel out of it.

Yeah, I saw that shit. Typical lib, all he has is talking points that can't be backed up without posting an opinion piece.

[SVPete]

The thing with these guys is they are like cookie cutter trolls.  They all parrot the same stuff.  We can usually spot them immediately.  Their typical approach is to attempt to call themselves conservative, and then proceed to dig themselves into a hole.

I took a look at your and Solar's Profiles. Based on your Reg dates being the same, I'm guessing the two of you are among the original members of CPF. And people who start and run discussion forums are not novices. So I'm guessing that the two of you have been on Internet discussion forums for many years. I've been on news/politics forums since 1998. So, yeah, certain approaches, narratives, lines of argument, patterns, phrases and words become very recognizable with time and experience.

[SVPete]

K1983, the gig is over. You revealed your species with your first post, and no one's taking your bait. Even as a piñata, you're getting old. I think it's time for you to pack up and try your shtick elsewhere.

[Knox1983]

He got caught using a debunked study and is trying to weasel out of it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/wsj-denies-global-warming-consensus.html
Yes, except the work that debunked that study has it's self been debunked....   


The original study looked at all the published, peer reviewed work that took a side, one way or the other.

The work you claims debunked this was other people more like you,  looked at how many times global warming or climate change were mentioned,  even if the work was about something completely different,  and compared those accepting AGW verses all others.

In effect, the study debunking it could only debunk it by being misleading.

Now, I'm not one off these guys that thinks the Koch brothers are evil, but the only science that comes up and says that AGW isn't real is science they and other big industry funds.

I'll gladly concede,  since this isn't political to me, that some of the climate change science out there is exaggerated by leftists, some others are because they get funding by finding something bad. But the overwhelming weight of evidence is on that side of the debate.

You might as well argue that gravity doesn't exist.
   

[Solar]

I took a look at your and Solar's Profiles. Based on your Reg dates being the same, I'm guessing the two of you are among the original members of CPF. And people who start and run discussion forums are not novices. So I'm guessing that the two of you have been on Internet discussion forums for many years. I've been on news/politics forums since 1998. So, yeah, certain approaches, narratives, lines of argument, patterns, phrases and words become very recognizable with time and experience.

You'd be correct in that we are original members.
Both, Taxed and I were members at another forum that was crapping on the Conservative voice, so out of disgust.
I left, to make a very long story short.

I had earned a bit of respect at the other forum and had been toying with the idea of starting a new forum for Conservatives to have a safe place to share ideas and ideals, but Taxed kept bugging me to start one, and bugging, and bugging.

So I registered the forum and had it up in a few short days, and Taxed, with his expertise was on top of it fine tuning the tech side, an invaluable asset, I might add.

So here we are, a few years later and growing exponentially every year.
I'm sure others can fill in the history of the site.

[taxed]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/wsj-denies-global-warming-consensus.html
Yes, except the work that debunked that study has it's self been debunked....   

Swing and miss, sweetie:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Cook's sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about "the literature" but rather about the papers they happened to find.

Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook's claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

The abstracts of the 12,000 papers were rated, twice, by 24 volunteers. Twelve rapidly dropped out, leaving an enormous task for the rest. This shows. There are patterns in the data that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard. In July 2013, Mr Cook claimed to have data that showed this is not the case. In May 2014, he claimed that data never existed.

The original study looked at all the published, peer reviewed work that took a side, one way or the other.

The work you claims debunked this was other people more like you,  looked at how many times global warming or climate change were mentioned,  even if the work was about something completely different,  and compared those accepting AGW verses all others.

In effect, the study debunking it could only debunk it by being misleading.

The data is also ridden with error. By Cook's own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.

Cook tried to validate the results by having authors rate their own papers. In almost two out of three cases, the author disagreed with Cook's team about the message of the paper in question.

   Strike 2

Now, I'm not one off these guys that thinks the Koch brothers are evil, but the only science that comes up and says that AGW isn't real is science they and other big industry funds.

Strike 3...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA

I'll gladly concede,  since this isn't political to me, that some of the climate change science out there is exaggerated by leftists, some others are because they get funding by finding something bad. But the overwhelming weight of evidence is on that side of the debate.

There isn't any science.  The science shows we're in a cooling phase, no matter how much you want it to be.  Strike 4.

You might as well argue that gravity doesn't exist.

Gravity does exist.  Man made global warming doesn't.  It's been debunked, over and over again.

You're OUT!

[Knox1983]

That's the point. It's been cooling over the past 10, but warming the prior 20 to 30.

It's called climate change because they don't know which exact way the change is going. In the polar regions, the change is more pronounced.  It's getting warmer up there....

I'll admit to one thing.  I'm a very recent convert to global warming. I'm new to this site, I got booted from my last haunt for being too conservative.  There it was the lingua franca and over the years they finally won me over.

[Mountainshield]

I know you guys pwned him dozen times over and finally booted him for not answering refutations and spamming , but I didn't read this topic before now and his entire OP is filled with hilarious attacks I just want to address for humor sake.

have made their mission to piss off and drive away rational people

Attack #1: We conservatives are not rational people

freaking out about equal rights for ALL Americans

Attack #2: We conservatives are racist/bigoted

constantly acting as if the white christian is being persecuted around the nation

Attack #3: We conservatives are race obsessed racists with persecution complex

who are extreme and radical in their christianity

Attack #4: Insinuation that members here are extremist creationists without giving any proof

I'm a Christian,  I dislike abortion,  but it is settled law. Not going to change no matter how many presidents or senators we elect.

Attack #5: We conservatives should accept defeat because apparently the liberals won, we just didn't get the memo

The bible has no place in American public policy

Attack #6: Translation: Christians have no place in American politics

Advocating for biblical science to be taught in schools offends most people. Not because the bible is offensive,  but because ignorance is.

Attack #7: Translation: The bible have no place in education or schools

Teach the kids reality so our nation can once again lead in math and science.

Attack #8: The reason the American education system is failing is not the teacher unions, centralization or social engineering curriculums, it is all the Bible teachings...

And the rest of his post is basically just STFU and accept liberalism already.

What a terrible poser It nice to get offended by Libtards from time to time, keeps reminding me how lame they are 

[taxed]

 

Libs would be so much fun if they couldn't vote...

[supsalemgr]

Libs would be so much fun if they couldn't vote...

So right. They are fun when not in power, but dangerous in power.

[SVPete]

I know you guys pwned him dozen times over and finally booted him for not answering refutations and spamming , but I didn't read this topic before now and his entire OP is filled with hilarious attacks I just want to address for humor sake.

Attack #1: We conservatives are not rational people

Attack #2: We conservatives are racist/bigoted

Attack #3: We conservatives are race obsessed racists with persecution complex

Attack #4: Insinuation that members here are extremist creationists without giving any proof

Attack #5: We conservatives should accept defeat because apparently the liberals won, we just didn't get the memo

Attack #6: Translation: Christians have no place in American politics

Attack #7: Translation: The bible have no place in education or schools

Attack #8: The reason the American education system is failing is not the teacher unions, centralization or social engineering curriculums, it is all the Bible teachings...

And the rest of his post is basically just STFU and accept liberalism already.

What a terrible poser It nice to get offended by Libtards from time to time, keeps reminding me how lame they are 

K1983 got the right foot of disfellowship? Missed that bit of news. Your summary of the many ways K1983 revealed what he really is is top-notch!

Whether from stupidity or malice, people claiming to be "conservative" who try to drive a wedge between conservatives between those with social concerns and those whose primary concerns are fiscal will, if successful, defeat both. Stupidity or malice, it's divide and conquer. And if that happens, the stupidity or malice question won't really matter.