Callinectes (02-14-2019), Nomad (02-14-2019)
Members banned from this thread: USFREEDOM911, cancel2 2022, Truth Detector, MAGA MAN and CFM |
Callinectes (02-14-2019), Nomad (02-14-2019)
Second attempt at an Honest questions here
Do liberals see any connection between a move towards a “great society” and man-made global warming?
Seriously. Have you considered the hypocrisy of your platforms? You want to take from the rich, allowing the poor and middle class to have a better living conditions
An undeniable fact of the matter is poor people in this country have far larger homes then the poor people in other countries. Poor people here have more technology in their homes too.
How can we improve man made global warming by allowing the poor to live even better? Every program you implement that takes from the rich (who are few in numbers) and distributes to the poor is going to increase consumption, which increases production, which increases pollution.
Every time the economy slows – you will see democrats wanting to pump money into the economy to get people spending again. Spending – on vacations, technology, gas, travel, larger mortgages for bigger homes, etc, etc. Our economic system requires debt based spending as we need to grow GDP to minimize the ratio to foreign held debt.
So what you are saying is that you are indeed to stupid to comprehend basic math. Their math in the article YOU linked to, is WRONG. Period. The math is simple moron.
So the article you linked to states something, I repeat it, and I am the one with the comprehension problem?
Congrats, you are now in the running with Desh, Garud and Christie for dumbest poster on the board.
cancel2 2022 (02-14-2019), Sirthinksalot (02-14-2019)
One statement out of a magazine article, made by one of the study's coauthors you fucking halfwit. You've lost this argument several pages ago. If stubbornness was intelligence, you'd be Albert fucking Einstein. Unfortunately for you, it isn't. You're just a stubborn moron who's to stupid to recognize defeat.
cancel2 2022 (02-14-2019)
Oops! I thought that meant how many times I've BEEN groaned! But I see there is a counter for that too! Time to go back on the ginkgo biloba, if I can remember where I put it! To be honest, I don't like to groan anyone and I decided a long time ago that I wouldn't do it. It's been so long I guess I just forgot that I ever did it!
“The Communist party must control the guns.”
― Mao Tse-tung
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”-Generally attributed to Uncle Joe Stalin
“Everything under heaven is in utter choas; the situation is excellent.”
― mao tse-tung
One more time.... neither one of you fucking morons have read or analyzed the entire study, therefore neither one of you fucking morons has any standing to draw an accurate conclusion based on the limited data you were given.
And even if SureSUCKSalot's little junior high school science project level math problem was accurate, it still results in only 7.75% of the current insect population being around in 100 years.
I would say that given the possibility of variable factors we don't know about, which could push the numbers up or down, that's probably within an acceptable margin of error.
You two ignorant fucking hillbillies did exactly what I predicted you'd do in the OP.
C'MON MAN!!!!
cancel2 2022 (02-14-2019)
Gonad, If you would like I will buy this for you:
One more time, I commented on one statement made by a coauthor of the study. If he can make a statement that even a purported NOBODY like ME can identify, what does that say about the overall credibility of the study?
It is undeniably accurate. I'm glad I'm finally getting through your thick skull, even if only marginally. Losing roughly 92% of the current insect population would certainly be bad for life on the planet.And even if SureSUCKSalot's little junior high school science project level math problem was accurate, it still results in only 7.75% of the current insect population being around in 100 years.
It's funny that you're now talking about the margine of error. He said there would be no insects left. We can't have a negative number of insects.I would say that given the possibility of variable factors we don't know about, which could push the numbers up or down, that's probably within an acceptable margin of error.
Really? You predicted that someone would point out an obvious math error made by one of the study's authors? No, actually you didn't.You two ignorant fucking hillbillies did exactly what I predicted you'd do in the OP.
"You two ignorant fucking hillbillies did exactly what I predicted you'd do in the OP.". Yes, kick your ass with your own stupidity again. Yet you still keep coming back for that beating.
You commented on one statement from a magazine article without having all of the other facts and never having seen the actual study, which of course, you wouldn't have understood anyway.
Just as I predicted, you did so for the purpose of disparaging and casting doubt on the entire study.
Worse yet, you did it based on junior high school math and you assume that tells the whole story.
You are a typical braindead Trumptard idiot.
C'MON MAN!!!!
cancel2 2022 (02-14-2019)
cancel2 2022 (02-14-2019)
Bookmarks