Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers

[SgtSpiderMan]

You're a fucking psychopath. I've dealt with you before.

You've been here about 6 months, when have we had a conversation?

My original question still stands.

 

[KingOrfeo]

My teachers smoked pot. Fucking Yanks always have to go too far or at least one up everybody else!

I know, I know. Compare this with this!

 

[Ms_Ann]

You've been here about 6 months, when have we had a conversation?

My original question still stands.

You're not very self aware are you? I guess that follows being a psychopath.

 

[hashtag46]

We can always count on you for a precise and logical argument.

Funny.

 

[Rightguide]

You're a fucking psychopath. I've dealt with you before.

LOL...

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Imagine that. The left is suddenly worried about "science" being politicized.

The left has a hard time understanding what XY XY means.

Science is hard.....

 

[KingOrfeo]

The left has a hard time understanding what XY XY means.

That is because XY XY does not mean anything without an operator.

 

[Conager]

No, I did it just right.

You meant to place an adjective, then a state of being followed by a noun, not connected to, or being modified by, the adjective?

 

[trysail]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2017_v6-550x317.jpg


​

 

[KingOrfeo]

You meant to place an adjective, then a state of being followed by a noun, not connected to, or being modified by, the adjective?

Don't see how that analysis applies to:

Yes, we're worried about "science," as distinct from science, being politicized. The consensus of climatologists that climate change is real and anthropogenic is science. The Heartland Institute's denialism is "science."

The only adjectives in that are "real" and "anthropogenic," and they are used correctly.

 

[phrodeau]

Don't see how that analysis applies to:



The only adjectives in that are "real" and "anthropogenic," and they are used correctly.

It could have used some commas around the conjunctional phrase.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm also a bit perplexed by Conager's use of "state of being" as a grammatical term. It is not one I recall, though I may have simply forgotten, from Strunk & White or the AP Style Manual.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/fashion_police_and_grammar_police.png

 

[Conager]

I'm also a bit perplexed by Conager's use of "state of being" as a grammatical term. It is not one I recall, though I may have simply forgotten, from Strunk & White or the AP Style Manual.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/fashion_police_and_grammar_police.png

I said state of being was a "grammatical term?"

 

[KingOrfeo]

I said state of being was a "grammatical term?"

No, but you used it as one.

 

[Conager]

No, but you used it as one.

Did not.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Did not.

As used, and in company with words like "adjective," "noun" and "modified," it sure looked like one.

 

[Conager]

As used, and in company with words like "adjective," "noun" and "modified," it sure looked like one.

This is what is known as circular logic.

You applied a label to what I said, then complained that the label you applied is not found in a style guide for what you applied it to.

Why not invest some time and effort into making your clearly false statement about climate change at least coherant?

 

[KingOrfeo]

This is what is known as circular logic.

You applied a label to what I said, then complained that the label you applied is not found in a style guide for what you applied it to.

I reasonably applied that label to a phrase that you embedded in a discussion of grammar, and embedded it in exactly the same way as one would a grammatical term, and, in fact, you were using it as such; and I did not complain but merely expressed perplexity at "state of being" being a new grammatical term to me. I'm still not clear as to what you meant by it.

 

[phrodeau]

I reasonably applied that label to a phrase that you embedded in a discussion of grammar, and embedded it in exactly the same way as one would a grammatical term, and, in fact, you were using it as such; and I did not complain but merely expressed perplexity at "state of being" being a new grammatical term to me. I'm still not clear as to what you meant by it.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

 

[Conager]

So that is a no to making the sentance legible?

Fine.

I'll argue with what you cannot correctly articulate.

No scientist in the planet agrees with what you claim.

Even alarmists like phrodeau do not claim that the climate would be static if not for man's influence.

 

[Conager]

. . . . .

 

[phrodeau]

Heartland spends millions of dollars to megaphone their claim that there isn't enough data for conclusions on climate, and not one dime on research or collecting more data. Why should we care what they think?

 

[Conager]

"Millions" would be what small percentage in comparison to the amounts spent on grants for anything with "climate change" in the proposal? (You are really going to miss all that gov't paid body of confirmation bias for your faith's cannon of scripture.)

 

[phrodeau]

"Millions" would be what small percentage in comparison to the amounts spent on grants for anything with "climate change" in the proposal? (You are really going to miss all that gov't paid body of confirmation bias for your faith's cannon of scripture.)

You say that as if there is only one government funding climate research. Fact is, there are several, and they all reach the same conclusions. Do you imagine that there's a world-wide conspiracy of climate scientists without any independent nation reaching different conclusions?

 

[Conager]

You say that as if there is only one government funding climate research. Fact is, there are several, and they all reach the same conclusions. Do you imagine that there's a world-wide conspiracy of climate scientists without any independent nation reaching different conclusions?

Why would a conspiracy be necessary to harness herd mentality and climb aboard a bandwagon?

Can you point to any grants funded where the requestor expressed skepticsm, or pointed to other, more likely causative factors?

I'm really looking foward to the dearth of supportive studies with massive US dollars denied that rathole.