Teaching Fake News

[JustWinBaby]

(02-13-2020, 01:46 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Don’t forget that career staffers like Yavonovitch would dictate foreign policy to Trump instead of vice versa.

Do you have a point here?

Do you have examples of where Obama succeeded, on the foreign stage, whereas Trump failed?  I'll wait.....It's almost as if - wait for it - I was right.


3+ years of being told Trump was going to destroy the world.  Yet, everything is marginally better than 3 years ago.  Kind of makes the alarmists look like idiots, no?  Some might even say it kind of looks like I was right.

[Benton]

(03-02-2020, 06:45 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Do you have a point here?

Do you have examples of where Obama succeeded, on the foreign stage, whereas Trump failed?  I'll wait.....It's almost as if - wait for it - I was right.


3+ years of being told Trump was going to destroy the world.  Yet, everything is marginally better than 3 years ago.  Kind of makes the alarmists look like idiots, no?  Some might even say it kind of looks like I was right.

Eh, marginally better? Our growth rate has slowed, our debt is going up and the issues that needed addressing 20 years ago are largely still the issues that need addressing.

I mean, if we're going to celebrate because the world didn't end, I guess pass me a slice of cake. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-02-2020, 06:45 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Do you have a point here?

Yeah. Yavonovitch didn’t direct policy to Trump, but rather vice versa.

Quote:Do you have examples of where Obama succeeded, on the foreign stage, whereas Trump failed?  I'll wait.....It's almost as if - wait for it - I was right.


3+ years of being told Trump was going to destroy the world.  Yet, everything is marginally better than 3 years ago.  Kind of makes the alarmists look like idiots, no?  Some might even say it kind of looks like I was right.

Everything is marginally better? Relations with China, Iran, and North Korea are not even marginally better.

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2020, 06:45 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Do you have examples of where Obama succeeded, on the foreign stage, whereas Trump failed?  I'll wait.....It's almost as if - wait for it - I was right.

Obama had limits on Iran's development of nuclear weapons.  Now that is gone.

Obama did not let Kim trick him onto cancelling joint military maneuvers in South Korea.  And now South Korea is strengthening ties with China as relations with the US fall apart.

[Belsnickel]

(03-02-2020, 10:10 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Everything is marginally better? Relations with China, Iran, and North Korea are not even marginally better.

And relationships with many of our Western allies are demonstrably worse.

[Dill]

(03-02-2020, 06:41 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Any time you want to debate climate science, you're welcome to try.  Every one of those arguments ends the same way they began "but but but you can't prove the earth isn't warming".  Sounds a lot like the programmed response of idiots.  I can't teach you how to model, but I did show you why the climate modeling is garbage in, garbage out.   Don't lecture me on critical thinking when you're incapable of it.

But I know you don't actually have a degree in math....or statistics....or science....or climate.....Because if you did you'd debate with actual science, as opposed to ad-hominem attacks.  Actually, if you had those degrees you'd wouldn't even be arguing because you'd agree with me.  But to be fair, AOC has a degree in economics so maybe I'm being naive.

edit: I'm not a "denier".  Anyone who calls me that is ignorant. If you don't even know what an R-sq is then shut the **** up.

"AOC" ...what..?  Random much? 

Lets start with some of that critical thinking.
1. You claim if I had a degree "math....or statistics....or science....or climate...." I'd agree with you.  
2. But thousands of climate scientists with degrees in "math....or statistics....or science....or climate...."--90%+-- don't agree with you.
So where is the warrant for "1"?   

And no, you haven't "shown" anyone that "climate modeling is garbage in, garbage out." You've basically claimed that, then ignored the deconstruction of those claims, and disappeared, only to pop up again months later, quoting Forbes and the WJS, and claiming people who disagree are just programmed by Huffpost. 

The pattern is--you keep locating your differences with others in their supposed deficiencies (ad hominem), while they address your arguments as arguments, and find them wanting, especially in comprehension of how science works.  A sampling of posts explaining science to you:

Stewy #16, #17 & #19 (a follow up post on Geoscientific method)  "GOOD NEWS, EVERYONE !! (Ozone Layer)" 
Hollo # 61 & #67 "The Alt Right Hails its Victorious God Emperor" 12/18/16 & 12/22/16 respectively
Hollo # 49 & #52  "Hey Look It's a Climate Change Thread" 1/20/17 & 2/27/17 respectively
Beaker # 15 "Climate Change Deniers"  11/11/17
Dill #70 "The Alt Right Hails its Victorious God Emperor"

Which thread was it that Breech called you out for refusing to post studies you claimed to know, because that would be "proving a negative"?

Most recently your "conscious intellectualism" was on display on the "Weather and Climate Change" thread, where you actually began posting links for support.  But primarily blogs and newspaper articles, so once again, Breech was begging you to post at least one of the "studies" you claimed to know. Beaker was again explaining and refuting like a good science teacher. But start with post #81 (8/07/19), where I helped you over some confusions about an article from NATURE entitled "No Evidence for Globally Coherent Warm and Cold Periods over the Pre industrial Common Era." (You could not follow the abstract.) And I PM'd you the entire article when you could not access any of the science databases which carry NATURE. How much time did I spend vetting your sources on that thread, starting with Roy Spencer (who endorses intelligent design) and ending with Judith Curry (who doesn't support your position at all)? #82

So where is your memory? You've not done well at all with climate science debates in this forum. Assert, insult, repeat, disappear. That's been your method.