• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Liberals are...smarter!

To begin, I have held the belief for some time that liberals, and more specifically Democrats, are vastly more intelligent than republicans. Ones intelligence and more importantly ones understanding of science is a direct marker and determining factor of social and political views.

We all know that no two degrees are equal, even two degrees from the same institution. Obtaining a degree in Molecular Genetics from Stanford requires more prowess, mental agility, and raw pure intelligence. In contrast, a degree in political science from Stanford is far more easily obtained. Of course, nobody would deny that the political science student is in fact educated, however intelligence and education are not one in the same. To add more complexity, I would argue that someone with a physical or life science education is "more educated," this statement may seem to be in direct contrast to the prior, but read it carefully and a distinction does exist.

It is no secret that a degree in science, not only requires greater intelligence, but also requires much more raw dedication, time, and hard work. While political science students go home and party after lecture, the physical and life science students are walking to lab, to fulfill hours of required laboratory time after lecture.

Now exceptions due exist, exceptions due apply, I don't need someone reminding me of this. With that said, the following trend in higher education typically holds true. Physical and life science Professors, top physical and life science researchers, and students with a strong science background tend to hold more open-minded, understanding, liberal views. Additionally these same science professors, researchers and students tend to identify as democrats. On the other extreme, professors and students with non-science backgrounds have more conservative, and closed minded views, many identifying themselves as republican. Again, this may seem like a blanket statement, however I have already acknowledged that exceptions due apply.

Why are intelligent people more liberal, more understanding, more openminded, more prone to identify as democrat? The answer again comes down to intelligence and an understanding of science.

A republican will argue that taking the morning after pill is murder of a baby. An intelligent person will separate religion from science, and realize that a mass of dividing cells is not a baby, but nothing more than cells that are replicating their DNA, chromosomes are aligning at the equator and a complex network of cellular components begin to separate chromotids in a a masterful fashion. This is not a baby, yet republicans do not have the intelligence or the understanding of science to make this distinction.

A republican(the person with less intelligence) will argue that being gay is a choice, is not bound by nature, and gays are eventually going to burn in hell. An intelligent person will be more understanding, more open-minded, and actively explore the possibility that homosexuality is an outcome of either ones genetic code or epi-genetics. I personally believe that homosexuality will eventually be determined to be an outcome of epi-genetics, involving not one or two genes, but hundreds of genes that are regulated by epi-genetics.

Republicans have actively taken steps to hold this country back in so many ways, due to their lack of intelligence and understanding of science. Also the ability to separate religion from science has proven to be detrimental, again republicans can be thanked.

The Bush administration administered a huge blow, when they announced that federal funds would not be used to fund research based on embryonic stem cells. Again, someone with intelligence would realize the negative impact such a decision would have on millions of people. Fast forward 8 years, had federal funding of stem cell research been actively supported, we would be on the cusp of treatments for a vast array of diseases, especially neurological disorders. Although not an absolute, the general trend is that adult neurons do not replicate, this is why damage to these precious precious cells is so devastating and holds many negative implications.

A republican will say "homeless people are lazy, it's their fault they are homeless, who cares about them, they don't need social programs, the economy is down, screw the homeless" An intelligent person will see the big picture. Many homeless people suffer from some type of psychological disorder. Again, if your hardware is not working properly, how are you expected to function in society? How are you expected to maintain a job? This may be a poor analogy, but think about a homeless person with a mental and psychological disorder being similar to your Android phone which insists on force closing and crashing. There is something wrong in the programming or hardware, unless you try to fix it, it will continue to crash.

The same applies with many homeless people. The brain is a complex organ, such delicate tissue, a tube which has folded upon itself through evolution to result in what we call a brain. How can you blame a schizophrenic person for being homeless? HOW? This individuals hardware does not function, it is out of their control, it is sad to see a human in this state. They are plagued by auditory and visual crashes, they hear voices, and see things that are out of their control. The parts of their brains responsible are physiologically different from those of a normal brain. The brain of a schizophrenic person is actually smaller in volume in many key structures. How can you blame this person for being born this way? Republicans are ruthless, while a democrat will push for social reform, will push to have social programs to treat, provide medication and counsel these human beings who were unlucky and born with a physiological defect that is OUT OF THEIR CONTROL. If you are an unintelligent republican with no understanding of science, you will never have compassion for mentally disabled people.


Now lets go beyond science, lets just talk about compassion, and the ability to have an understanding for the bigger picture. Some republicans are ruthless, they are unable to think deeply and see the big picture. A republican gets angry, gets mad when someone suggests equal opportunity programs. A republican will make the statement "why should someone who is black get into a university and not me, my SAT's are perfect, my grades are perfect, the black student is dumb." Yes these are words I've actually heard many republican youth mumble. An intelligent person will realize that the minority student is NOT inferior, is NOT stupid, but is a product of their environment, a product of poverty, a product of a cycle that for many poor people continues to cycle generation after generation.

The republican student, generally comes from a family with a higher income. (Again, I do realize exceptions do apply). This student from a family with money is able to afford a 3 thousand dollar Princeton Review SAT course, of course this student's SAT scores will be higher than a black child growing up in the ghetto. The student from a financially secure family goes home to a nice warm home, with dinner waiting, their own bedroom, and a beautiful calm environment to study. The student living in a ghetto comes home to no father, mother who is working 3 jobs, and must take over the role of a parent to 5 crying babies. How is this student suppose to compete equally on paper? This is why we must take a stand, look at the big picture, and take active steps to stop the cycle, to give the minority student from a disadvantaged background the opportunity to succeed. If we don't open the door for these minority disadvantaged students, it will remain shut! The rich student has 10 doors waiting to open for every door that shuts.

I could go on for ever, I could give a million examples, but I won't. Hopefully, someone reading this was able to grasp what idea I was trying to convey.

Reading this, it is clear I am a democrat. Growing up I had many friends who were republican, and even as a high school student my opinions clashed with many of my republican friends. I will not beat around the bush, I tend to believe many republicans lack the intelligence that is required for an individual to be understanding and have compassion for another fellow human being. I will go as far as to say some republicans disgust me, their stupidity continues to surprise me on a daily basis.


Ok, I can see and agree with most of this, but you focus completely, 100% on the poor, black, underprivileged, etc. If we keep programs in to help minorities, poor people, etc., what happens to the child that does not fall into this category but is still just as deserving of a spot in a university, honor society, or a job as the other? Do you not think about that child's future? What his thoughts towards the child that got the spot over him because of his color or financial situation?

Now, I understand that there is a vicious cycle in the instance you mentioned. And in order to have a prosperous nation/society, whatever, in the long-run, we need to break this cycle. But why are we playing Robin Hood, taking from the rich or the smart child, and giving to the poor, minority child? I can't think of a middle-ground, but surely, you being the omniscient Democrat that you are, should know of one. And if there should not be one, why not?

Sounds like you grew up with just-enough, while your friends had more than you and you're lashing out because of that.


And you comment on degrees from Stanford and degrees in different areas of studies. What credentials do you possess that let you speak so freely on the worth of degrees?

Simple question, no emotion behind it. Just so we can judge your credibility, or at least I can. I'm anxious to learn the views of others and broaden my own. I just don't want to be hearing it from a bum that thinks he's a philosophe. Because, like you, in high school, I knew people that have yet to amount to anything, yet talked like they had a firm grasp on life and its meaning.
 
To begin, I have held the belief for some time that liberals, and more specifically Democrats, are vastly more intelligent than republicans. Ones intelligence and more importantly ones understanding of science is a direct marker and determining factor of social and political views.

So, anyone who disagrees with you, is stupid. I see the partisanship in your views of people, but it doesn't bode well for your intelligence.

With that said, the following trend in higher education typically holds true. Physical and life science Professors, top physical and life science researchers, and students with a strong science background tend to hold more open-minded, understanding, liberal views. Additionally these same science professors, researchers and students tend to identify as democrats. On the other extreme, professors and students with non-science backgrounds have more conservative, and closed minded views, many identifying themselves as republican. Again, this may seem like a blanket statement, however I have already acknowledged that exceptions due apply.

Care to show the studies on this?

Why are intelligent people more liberal, more understanding, more openminded, more prone to identify as democrat? The answer again comes down to intelligence and an understanding of science.

Really? Again, you state your opinion that people who agree with you are more intelligent than people who don't agree with you. That's a really arrogant thing to say.

A republican will argue that taking the morning after pill is murder of a baby.

That's as stupid as saying "A democrat will say that killing a fetus at 9 months 2 weeks isn't murder because the baby is still in the womb, and it's the woman's body and HER choice."

This statement is as idiotic as saying "White people believe this, or black people believe that."

FYI, Both Democrats and Republicans believe that the morning after pill is murdering a baby. That's not to say that ALL Republicans and ALL Democrats believe this, or even a majority. Only that SOME people believe this.



An intelligent person will separate religion from science, and realize that a mass of dividing cells is not a baby, but nothing more than cells that are replicating their DNA, chromosomes are aligning at the equator and a complex network of cellular components begin to separate chromotids in a a masterful fashion. This is not a baby, yet republicans do not have the intelligence or the understanding of science to make this distinction.

By your description here, even a born child is not a baby. Since the above stated process continues well after birth. In fact, by your above statement, I'm not sure you could call anything a "baby" until adulthood.

A republican(the person with less intelligence) will argue that being gay is a choice, is not bound by nature, and gays are eventually going to burn in hell. An intelligent person will be more understanding, more open-minded, and actively explore the possibility that homosexuality is an outcome of either ones genetic code or epi-genetics. I personally believe that homosexuality will eventually be determined to be an outcome of epi-genetics, involving not one or two genes, but hundreds of genes that are regulated by epi-genetics.

You do realize that there are gay Republicans? You do realize that there are Democrats who believe that being homosexual is a choice?

You aren't showing any superior intelligence by trying to group Republicans into a group and calling them less intelligent.

Republicans have actively taken steps to hold this country back in so many ways, due to their lack of intelligence and understanding of science. Also the ability to separate religion from science has proven to be detrimental, again republicans can be thanked.

Again, do you have any proof that Republicans don't understand science? I mean, other than your deep bias against people who think different than you?

The Bush administration administered a huge blow, when they announced that federal funds would not be used to fund research based on embryonic stem cells. Again, someone with intelligence would realize the negative impact such a decision would have on millions of people. Fast forward 8 years, had federal funding of stem cell research been actively supported, we would be on the cusp of treatments for a vast array of diseases, especially neurological disorders. Although not an absolute, the general trend is that adult neurons do not replicate, this is why damage to these precious precious cells is so devastating and holds many negative implications.

This statement is so false as to be an active lie. First, this type of research IS being done around the world, and we aren't on the "cusp" of anything. It's just not being done here. Or do you think that the United States is the Only source of scientific advancement in the world.

A republican will say "homeless people are lazy, it's their fault they are homeless, who cares about them, they don't need social programs, the economy is down, screw the homeless" An intelligent person will see the big picture. Many homeless people suffer from some type of psychological disorder. Again, if your hardware is not working properly, how are you expected to function in society? How are you expected to maintain a job? This may be a poor analogy, but think about a homeless person with a mental and psychological disorder being similar to your Android phone which insists on force closing and crashing. There is something wrong in the programming or hardware, unless you try to fix it, it will continue to crash.

Well, one thing IS clear. You believe what Democratic politicians tell you, and don't look into it further on your own.

Both Democrats and Republicans want to take care of the poor and homeless. Where they differ is on "Who's job is it". Democrats believe that it is the government's job to take care of the poor and needy. Republicans believe that it is the individual's job to take care of the poor and needy.

This is why Republicans, in general, give far more to charity, and far more time to charitable organizations.

Republicans, in general, tend to go out and FEED the hungry. They tend to go out and TAKE CARE of the needy. They just don't trust the government to do it.

The same applies with many homeless people. The brain is a complex organ, such delicate tissue, a tube which has folded upon itself through evolution to result in what we call a brain. How can you blame a schizophrenic person for being homeless? HOW? This individuals hardware does not function, it is out of their control, it is sad to see a human in this state. They are plagued by auditory and visual crashes, they hear voices, and see things that are out of their control. The parts of their brains responsible are physiologically different from those of a normal brain. The brain of a schizophrenic person is actually smaller in volume in many key structures. How can you blame this person for being born this way? Republicans are ruthless, while a democrat will push for social reform, will push to have social programs to treat, provide medication and counsel these human beings who were unlucky and born with a physiological defect that is OUT OF THEIR CONTROL. If you are an unintelligent republican with no understanding of science, you will never have compassion for mentally disabled people.

You seem to be arguing against the caricature of the Republican party that is put forward by Democrats. I'm sorry you've been so obviously fooled. Maybe you should do a little more research in to what real life Republican's belief, and stop listening so much to what Democrats say Republicans believe.


Now lets go beyond science, lets just talk about compassion, and the ability to have an understanding for the bigger picture. Some republicans are ruthless, they are unable to think deeply and see the big picture. A republican gets angry, gets mad when someone suggests equal opportunity programs. A republican will make the statement "why should someone who is black get into a university and not me, my SAT's are perfect, my grades are perfect, the black student is dumb." Yes these are words I've actually heard many republican youth mumble. An intelligent person will realize that the minority student is NOT inferior, is NOT stupid, but is a product of their environment, a product of poverty, a product of a cycle that for many poor people continues to cycle generation after generation.

Mumble? I've heard it and said it. Why should race be a factor in any decision? Why should anyone be discriminated against based upon race, whether or not you agree with the discrimination.

The republican student, generally comes from a family with a higher income.

Again, you fail to look past the Republican Caricature. Most Republicans are poorer.

(Again, I do realize exceptions do apply). This student from a family with money is able to afford a 3 thousand dollar Princeton Review SAT course, of course this student's SAT scores will be higher than a black child growing up in the ghetto. The student from a financially secure family goes home to a nice warm home, with dinner waiting, their own bedroom, and a beautiful calm environment to study. The student living in a ghetto comes home to no father, mother who is working 3 jobs, and must take over the role of a parent to 5 crying babies. How is this student suppose to compete equally on paper? This is why we must take a stand, look at the big picture, and take active steps to stop the cycle, to give the minority student from a disadvantaged background the opportunity to succeed. If we don't open the door for these minority disadvantaged students, it will remain shut! The rich student has 10 doors waiting to open for every door that shuts.

In 2008, of the voters who made more than $200,000 52% voted Democrat, 46% voted Republican.

In 2008, of the voters who made more than $100,000 49% voted Democrat, 49% voted Republican.

In 2008, of the voters who made more than $50,000 49% voted Democrat, 49% voted Republican.

You need to look further than the caricature that the Democrats paint of Republicans.

Edited to add: In 2008, 32% of ALL voters were Republican and made less than $100,000. 12% of ALL voters were Republican and made MORE than $100,000.

(Statistics from the 2008 Exit Polls:Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com)

I could go on for ever, I could give a million examples, but I won't. Hopefully, someone reading this was able to grasp what idea I was trying to convey.

A million examples of you misrepresenting the truth in order to make people who agree with you smarter than those who disagree? I don't see how that would be of any use at all...

I will go as far as to say some republicans disgust me, their stupidity continues to surprise me on a daily basis.

I have a similar feeling when people post things like this that distort the truth (whether they be Republican or Democrat) in an attempt to paint their political opponents in a bad light.
 
When you are not intelligent, you don't know a lick about science, and your name is Rush Limbaugh, you will make outrageous claims about global warming being fake, and concerning the oil leak you will say "the oil leak is fine, oil naturally occurs in the ocean, it won't harm anything, these democrats are trying to scare you." Yes the idiot made a comment like that, not verbatim but to that effect. For every 1 degree that our oceans warm up, this has negative consequences on several orders of magnitude for all wild life.

I'm going to assume a few things here:

1) I assume you don't listen to Limbaugh (for the record, neither do I).

2) I'm going to assume that you heard about this statement from a Democratic leaning source.

3) I'm going to assume that you didn't actually research the statement yourself.




I'm no fan of Limbaugh, but the guy isn't an absolute idiot. So, I researched your statement above and found the transcript where he said the statement you are referring to.

A little information to absorb before moving on.

His statement was in April. The oil spill was believed to be putting out 5,000 barrels a day at that point.

Regime SWAT Teams Sent to Gulf

Rush Limbaugh said:
We've got 5,000 barrels a day being spilled from the rig, and Dr. Spencer looked into it. You know, we've talked of this before. There's natural seepage into oceans all over the world from the ocean floor of oil -- and the ocean's pretty tough, it just eats it up. Dr. Spencer looked into this. You know the seepage from the floor of the Gulf is exactly 5,000 barrels a day, throughout the whole Gulf of Mexico now. It doesn't seep out all in one giant blob like this thing has, but the bottom line here is: Even places that have been devastated by oil slicks like... What was that place up in Alaska where the guy was drunk, ran a boat aground? (interruption) Prince William Sound. They were wiping off the rocks with Dawn dishwater detergent and paper towels and so forth. The place is pristine now.

At that rate, he was right. 5,000 barrels a day was nothing in the grand scheme of things. However, you didn't read his statements, you took someone's word for it, and that someone had a partisan agenda.

For the record... here's an article about natural oil seepage in the gulf from Jan 2000.

sciencedaily.com said:
To get an estimate of how much oil seeps into the Gulf each year, the researchers took into account the thickness of the oil-only a hundredth of a millimeter, the area of ocean surface covered by slicks, and how long the oil remains on the surface before it's consumed by bacteria or churned up by waves. "The number is twice the Exxon Valdez's spill per year, and that's a conservative estimate," said Mitchell.

Scientists Find That Tons Of Oil Seep Into The Gulf Of Mexico Each Year

Without any human intervention whatsoever, the Gulf of Mexico absorbs up to 1.5 million barrels per year.

That's over 4,000 barrels per day.






My recommendation:

Move past your partisanship.

Use some of that intelligence you claim you have

Research these things for yourself.

And finally

Quit letting politicians (or anyone with a political agenda for that matter) tell you what their opponents think, do, say, mean, or anything else.
 
I'm going to assume a few things here:

1) I assume you don't listen to Limbaugh (for the record, neither do I).

2) I'm going to assume that you heard about this statement from a Democratic leaning source.

3) I'm going to assume that you didn't actually research the statement yourself.

Well your assumptions are FALSE. I listen to talk radio everyday almost any chance I get, when I'm at home I have KFI 640 AM running in the background, I even fall asleep listening to Coast to Coast. I am a left wing democrat but I have to say hands down my favorite station is right wing KFI 640 AM. I wake up 5:30 every morning, and the first thing I listen to while I get ready for my day Is Bill Handel, then while I'm in the car in LA traffic Rush Limbaugh comes on, I must admit if the topic is boring I switch back and forth between Rush and Ryan Seacrest on FM.
Then in the evening, I turn on John & Ken, also on KFI 640 Am...these are all right wing conservatives. On the weekends I listen to Leo Laporte...also on KFI 640 AM, I also subscribe to Leo Laportes Pod Casts. I love Leo the tech guy! When Dr. Laura was on 640 AM, would listen to her also occasionally. Then I fall asleep every night listening to George Noory Coast to Coast AM, also on KFI 640 AM.

I have done this for probably the past 6 years on a daily basis. So please stop making assumptions. I live for this station, the bullshit they spew gets me fired up everyday, it's the most entertaining stuff ever. I realize how stupid republicans are everyday listening to specifically Rush and Bill Handel. As far as John and Ken go, they are down right racist assh*les, but I actually like them for entertainment value, even though I don't agree with their viewpoints.

As for your other points, I don't have time to entertain your poor arguments, clearly you and I come from two different worlds, different educational backgrounds, and different ways of thinking.
 
please stop equating Republicans with conservatives. Republicans haven't been conservatives(socially or fiscally) for a good 30 years.

political affiliation is determined by your environment(indoctrination or rebellion against said indoctrination), not by your intelligence.
 
Well your assumptions are FALSE. I listen to talk radio everyday almost any chance I get, when I'm at home I have KFI 640 AM running in the background, I even fall asleep listening to Coast to Coast. I am a left wing democrat but I have to say hands down my favorite station is right wing KFI 640 AM. I wake up 5:30 every morning, and the first thing I listen to while I get ready for my day Is Bill Handel, then while I'm in the car in LA traffic Rush Limbaugh comes on, I must admit if the topic is boring I switch back and forth between Rush and Ryan Seacrest on FM.
Then in the evening, I turn on John & Ken, also on KFI 640 Am...these are all right wing conservatives. On the weekends I listen to Leo Laporte...also on KFI 640 AM, I also subscribe to Leo Laportes Pod Casts. I love Leo the tech guy! When Dr. Laura was on 640 AM, would listen to her also occasionally. Then I fall asleep every night listening to George Noory Coast to Coast AM, also on KFI 640 AM.

I have done this for probably the past 6 years on a daily basis. So please stop making assumptions. I live for this station, the bullshit they spew gets me fired up everyday, it's the most entertaining stuff ever. I realize how stupid republicans are everyday listening to specifically Rush and Bill Handel. As far as John and Ken go, they are down right racist assh*les, but I actually like them for entertainment value, even though I don't agree with their viewpoints.

As for your other points, I don't have time to entertain your poor arguments,

I refuted every single point you made, with data to back it up. I even linked to the data that refuted your points...

All you responded with was that you did in fact listen to Rush Limbaugh, and my assumption was incorrect.

My assumption was incorrect, but all the facts that I put forth, well those are poor arguments.

clearly you and I come from two different worlds, different educational backgrounds, and different ways of thinking.

Yes, I like to make statements based upon verifiable facts, not partisan drivel.
 
I refuted every single point you made, with data to back it up. I even linked to the data that refuted your points...

All you responded with was that you did in fact listen to Rush Limbaugh, and my assumption was incorrect.

My assumption was incorrect, but all the facts that I put forth, well those are poor arguments.



Yes, I like to make statements based upon verifiable facts, not partisan drivel.

Oh I must apologize yes yes yes you are completely right, I'm wrong, thank you so much for your factual information.

You are totally right! Republicans are pro-choice supporters, who wants to join the RU486 club? They are the first to march in Gay Pride parades, Oh look it's McCain with a Rainbow flag. Sarah Palin has donated two of her own frozen embryos for stem cell research, what a humanitarian. The Republican party is throwing billions into clean energy, Drill baby drill...oh no way...that wasn't the republican slogan, we shall never utter those horrible words, we love the planet. Healthcare for all? But Of Course, heck even invite the Mexicans over.

Give me a break, I'm so over this, I'm more convinced than ever that Republicans are stupid. Thanks for the confirmation.
 
Reading this, it is clear I am a democrat. Growing up I had many friends who were republican, and even as a high school student my opinions clashed with many of my republican friends. I will not beat around the bush, I tend to believe many republicans lack the intelligence that is required for an individual to be understanding and have compassion for another fellow human being. I will go as far as to say some republicans disgust me, their stupidity continues to surprise me on a daily basis.

As to not quote the whole wall of text, I will only quote this portion that I think is the most important. You talk about being intelligent and open minded. How intelligent is it to force ALL republicans into generalized categories based on your own beliefs? How open minded is it to simply state that it is a fact (in your mind at least) that republicans are just not an intelligent group of people?

I hate to break it to you, but you sound like a pretty close minded democrat, but maybe that's just because my belief systems don't match up to yours. I would have to say that, for someone claiming to be intelligent, that wall of text has some pretty big flaws with it even by only using your own standards of what it means to be "intellectual."

EDIT: You're just trolling, right?
 
As to not quote the whole wall of text, I will only quote this portion that I think is the most important. You talk about being intelligent and open minded. How intelligent is it to force ALL republicans into generalized categories based on your own beliefs? How open minded is it to simply state that it is a fact (in your mind at least) that republicans are just not an intelligent group of people?

I hate to break it to you, but you sound like a pretty close minded democrat, but maybe that's just because my belief systems don't match up to yours. I would have to say that, for someone claiming to be intelligent, that wall of text has some pretty big flaws with it even by only using your own standards of what it means to be "intellectual."

EDIT: You're just trolling, right?


I think the posts got deleted and I think they were in this thread. He thought I advocated Hitler. I was shocked he didn't detect my trolling sarcasm in four subsequent posts. I seriously thought he was trolling.
 
You are totally right! Republicans are pro-choice supporters, who wants to join the RU486 club? They are the first to march in Gay Pride parades, Oh look it's McCain with a Rainbow flag. Sarah Palin has donated two of her own frozen embryos for stem cell research, what a humanitarian. The Republican party is throwing billions into clean energy, Drill baby drill...oh no way...that wasn't the republican slogan, we shall never utter those horrible words, we love the planet. Healthcare for all? But Of Course, heck even invite the Mexicans over.

This would be THE definition of a strawman argument (several actually), as I never claimed any of those things.

What I did do was provide verifiable DATA to refute each and every single one of your claims.

And this is ALL you can respond with.

Give me a break, I'm so over this, I'm more convinced than ever that Republicans are stupid. Thanks for the confirmation.

I have to say. You aren't proving yourself right.

Come on. Isn't there ANYTHING in your original post that you can PROVE you were RIGHT about?

I mean, other than just stating that you are?

Isn't there ANYTHING in my response that you can prove wrong? Anything at all?

Surely, someone who is intellectually superior could prove he was right about at least ONE thing... and prove me wrong about at least ONE thing.... right?
 
When you are not intelligent, you don't know a lick about science, and your name is Rush Limbaugh, you will make outrageous claims about global warming being fake

Out of sheer curiosity:
1) Would the Earth get warmer or colder if we stopped burning fossil fuels?
2) What is your solution to global warming?
3) How much does your proposed solution cool the Earth in the short and long terms?
4) How much does the Earth heat over the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years in any scenario?
5) What benefits exist in the world due to the consumption of fossil fuels?
6) Hell; for that matter, proof that global warming exists and is caused by the consumption of fossil fuels instead of other things (natural causes, urban heat centers, de-forestation, orbital patterns, etc). Biased sources, such as the IPCC (hey -- one great way to make consensus is to not invite any dissenting opinions!) not accepted.

You're so smart, let's hear it.

FWIW, I am a democrat. I enjoy this discussion because I'm certain you'll be wrong, and you consider yourself so intelligent and much better than everyone else.

The rest of your posts are pretty ridiculous too, but I'm limiting myself.
 
Out of sheer curiosity:
1) Would the Earth get warmer or colder if we stopped burning fossil fuels?
2) What is your solution to global warming?
3) How much does your proposed solution cool the Earth in the short and long terms?
4) How much does the Earth heat over the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years in any scenario?
5) What benefits exist in the world due to the consumption of fossil fuels?
6) Hell; for that matter, proof that global warming exists and is caused by the consumption of fossil fuels instead of other things (natural causes, urban heat centers, de-forestation, orbital patterns, etc). Biased sources, such as the IPCC (hey -- one great way to make consensus is to not invite any dissenting opinions!) not accepted.

You're so smart, let's hear it.

FWIW, I am a democrat. I enjoy this discussion because I'm certain you'll be wrong, and you consider yourself so intelligent and much better than everyone else.

The rest of your posts are pretty ridiculous too, but I'm limiting myself.
What else are you in denial about?

Gawd, this planet is ****ed isn't it? :'(


Is 99.9% consensus not enough?

Or do you just not want to change for the benifit of future generations so you can have a more comfortable life now?


That's shallow...
 
What else are you in denial about?

Gawd, this planet is ****ed isn't it? :'(


Is 99.9% consensus not enough?

Or do you just not want to change for the benifit of future generations so you can have a more comfortable life now?


That's shallow...

Thanks for not answering a single question, proving my point.
 
What else are you in denial about?

Gawd, this planet is ****ed isn't it? :'(


Is 99.9% consensus not enough?

Or do you just not want to change for the benifit of future generations so you can have a more comfortable life now?


That's shallow...

He never stated his opinions from what I can access, he was merely asking for answers to many of the typical question that a "intelligent" skeptical person would ask about global warming.
 
Care to provide a source for that number?



It hardly seems as shallow as stating that anyone who doesn't agree with you politically is (in your words) stupid.


It's okay. He's made it apparent that not only can he not answer the questions, but also that he doesn't understand it very well.

Out of sheer curiosity, we'll add a question:

How much of a difference would your proposed plan make for future generations; how far down the road; and why.
 
Although the odds are on your side, if I am right and there is a god out there afterall, I still get to say 'Ha, I was right all along bitches!', but If you are right, you still get no final say, because you'd be dead, and forgotten. I prefer to be the one getting the last word than no word at all." - WAdude:D

I've read every post in this thread, up to this quote, and have been trying to give you a break because of your youth. I am a Christian. Not a marginal Christian, but a Protestant fundamentalist Christian in the strictest sense of the phrase. I have cringed at nearly every post you have made, because you are making Christians look just plain stupid. I was going to overlook your make-believe words like "scientifical" and "ofcourse," and your wandering train of thought (or lack thereof), your absolutely stupid answer of why you are Catholic (because my mommy is), your circular reasoning of quoting scripture to athiests as proof of a god, your severe lack of biblical understanding, your ridiculous explanation of when to use the bible metaphorically and when to take it literally (hermeneutics), etc., etc., ad nauseum.

After all that, I was STILL going to keep my nose out of it, but this statement takes the cake, bud. I can't begin to explain how this is wrong, and ignorant, on so many levels. So I won't, because you wont get it anyhow.

Before you decide to take on the big boys (and girls), you need to know what you believe, why you believe it, and you need to posess the skillset and mental faculties to be able to present coherent and logical arguements. You have been slaughtered in this thread by adults who posess those qualities, and you have done a huge disservice to Christianity.

Put down the Droid and step away from the keyboard. Good. Now go take a decade or two to grow into the man your mommy wants you to be.
 
He never stated his opinions from what I can access, he was merely asking for answers to many of the typical question that a "intelligent" skeptical person would ask about global warmingQUOTE]

It was clear from his post he does not believe that climate change is happening and/or doesnt care :(
 
Out of sheer curiosity:
1) Would the Earth get warmer or colder if we stopped burning fossil fuels?
2) What is your solution to global warming?
3) How much does your proposed solution cool the Earth in the short and long terms?
4) How much does the Earth heat over the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years in any scenario?
5) What benefits exist in the world due to the consumption of fossil fuels?
6) Hell; for that matter, proof that global warming exists and is caused by the consumption of fossil fuels instead of other things (natural causes, urban heat centers, de-forestation, orbital patterns, etc). Biased sources, such as the IPCC (hey -- one great way to make consensus is to not invite any dissenting opinions!) not accepted.

You're so smart, let's hear it.

FWIW, I am a democrat. I enjoy this discussion because I'm certain you'll be wrong, and you consider yourself so intelligent and much better than everyone else.

The rest of your posts are pretty ridiculous too, but I'm limiting myself.

1. It would take many years to see the changes, also there are other factors (eg solar activity, which is low at the moment, goes in 10-12 yr cycles afaicr), but over say a few decades it should start to lower.

2. "My solution" would be to stop burning fossil fuels for electricty as soon as reasonably possible
Nuclear is the best solution for most large countries, but it will run out too...
Also meat based products may have to be restricted (due to methane emisions)

3. Due to the fact electricity generation amounts for less than 50% of use, AGW would continue w/out further measures

4. I dont have excact info on this but judging by current trends there'll be a lot more record breaking summers

5. Many. Its cheap and efficient. It must be preserved for other non-burning uses though

6. The IPCC is biased? Where are all the scientist involved who would therefor be whistleblowing?
All evidence shows the planet is heating up faster than in recorded history, CO2 and methane are insulators, and there are more of them in the atmosphere

Join the dots




As for 99% consensus I meant about scientific community
 
1. It would take many years to see the changes, also there are other factors (eg solar activity, which is low at the moment, goes in 10-12 yr cycles afaicr), but over say a few decades it should start to lower.

2. "My solution" would be to stop burning fossil fuels for electricty as soon as reasonably possible
Nuclear is the best solution for most large countries, but it will run out too...
Also meat based products may have to be restricted (due to methane emisions)
This response is very amusing for two reasons.
1) You don't understand how global warming from fossil fuel emissions work. That's ok, but you should recognize it. Specifically:
a) When you burn a fossil fuel, two kinds of emissions are created. S02 and C02. C02 has a lifespan of about 30 years in the atmosphere and creates the 'greenhouse gas' effect. S02 has a lifespan of a few months and forms the basis of clouds which gives it a substantial (moreso than C02) cooling effect.
b) What does this mean, combined with your solution? A rapid decrease in the global consumption of fossil fuels would result in a global warming, not a global cooling over the short term. Considering that we're talking about an increase in the amount of 1-2 degrees due to the consumption of fossil fuels over the next 30 years or so, it's likely that this increase would be similar... and then slowly back down.
2) The "net increase" of fossil fuel driven global warming if you look at 0 consumption compared to current consumption is something on the level of 2 degrees over the next 30 years. That's right -- the globe is expected to warm regardless of fossil fuel consumption.

It might be worth pointing out the drawbacks of nuclear fuel, but since I consider it a better source than renewables, that's fine. You should look into Mixed-Oxide Fuel (MOX) for nuclear reactors. It solves most of the issue of running out of fuel.
3. Due to the fact electricity generation amounts for less than 50% of use, AGW would continue w/out further measures

4. I dont have excact info on this but judging by current trends there'll be a lot more record breaking summers
Exactly, you haven't done research.
5. Many. Its cheap and efficient. It must be preserved for other non-burning uses though
You forgot to mention another big benefit of burning fossil fuels:
Food. Plants grow bigger, stronger, faster, and in more adverse condition due to high concentrations of C02. Studies that indicate otherwise are done in conditions where the roots are restricted, due to being placed in smaller jars.

6. The IPCC is biased? Where are all the scientist involved who would therefor be whistleblowing?
All evidence shows the planet is heating up faster than in recorded history, CO2 and methane are insulators, and there are more of them in the atmosphere

Join the dots

As for 99% consensus I meant about scientific community
Apparently you can't read. The IPCC only invited people that agreed with them; they generated consensus by not inviting any scientists who dissented.

You also apparently didn't notice some of the other things I mentioned, that are somewhat deceiving to the heat tests:
1) Urban heat sinks.
2) De-forestation (that causes a lot of C02 to enter the atmosphere.. think about the role of a tree, or plant in taking C02 and converting it to oxygen)
3) You've also ignored orbital oscillations as a theory of global heating.
4) Things like the way that Peat, when it heats up, will absorb more C02 from the atmosphere rather than less.
5) Oh, I'll go ahead and throw cloud formation in here even though I discussed it above.
6) Hell, did you know that increased atmosphere C02 encourages a heightened number of earthworms? And that earthworms do incredible things to soil, which goes back to my comment about food (albeit in a different way)

My personal beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. Your righteous attitude is rather amusing, though.

Also, FYI on the IPCC:

An audit the IPCC report finds that:

Out of the 140 forecasting principles, 127 principles are relevant to the procedures used to arrive at the climate projections in the IPCC report. Of these 127, the methods described in the report violated 60 principles. An additional 12 forecasting principles appear to be violated, and there is insufficient information in the report to assess the use of 38.
As a result of these violations of forecasting principles, the forecasts in the IPCC report are invalid. Specifically: The Data Are Unreliable. Temperature data is highly variable over time and space. Local proxy data of uncertain accuracy (such as ice cores and tree rings) must be used to infer past global temperatures. Even over the period during which thermometer data have been available, readings are not evenly spread across the globe and are often subject to local warming from increasing urbanization. As a consequence, the trend over time can be rising, falling or stable depending on the data sample chosen.

The Forecasting Models Are Unreliable. Complex forecasting methods are only accurate when there is little uncertainty about the data and the situation (in this case: how the climate system works), and causal variables can be forecast accurately. These conditions do not apply to climate forecasting. For example, a simple model that projected the effects of Pacific Ocean currents (El Ni
 
1. It would take many years to see the changes, also there are other factors (eg solar activity, which is low at the moment, goes in 10-12 yr cycles afaicr), but over say a few decades it should start to lower.

Please provide your source.

2. "My solution" would be to stop burning fossil fuels for electricty as soon as reasonably possible
Nuclear is the best solution for most large countries, but it will run out too...
Also meat based products may have to be restricted (due to methane emisions)

Can you provide the studies that detail how much effect how much methane has on the temperature?

3. Due to the fact electricity generation amounts for less than 50% of use, AGW would continue w/out further measures

Can you provide the studies that show the effect of carbon emissions in the atmosphere. Specifically how much carbon in the atmosphere, causes how much temperature increase over how much time?

4. I dont have excact info on this but judging by current trends there'll be a lot more record breaking summers

You don't have data on how the Earth is going to heat in any scenario? How in the world can you make claims to the effects of Global Warming, if you don't have any projection on the temperature in ANY scenario?

5. Many. Its cheap and efficient. It must be preserved for other non-burning uses though

Like what?

6. The IPCC is biased? Where are all the scientist involved who would therefor be whistleblowing?

Oh my God... you just did not ask that question.

Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal - Telegraph

Telegraph said:
Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a "poor application" of IPCC procedures.

Don't forget Mark Hauser.

Don't forget that the IAP has investigated that IPCC processes and found it deeply flawed.

They concluded that there was no requirement to examine the full range of "thoughtful scientific views".

They concluded that:
IAP said:
Formal qualifications for the chair and all other Bureau members need to be developed, as should a rigorous conflict-of-interest policy to be applied to senior IPCC leadership and all authors, review editors, and staff responsible for report content, the committee added.

There are NO qualifications requirements to be responsible for what goes into the report, and there are no requirements against conflicts of interest in those positions (or any within the IPCC).

All evidence shows the planet is heating up faster than in recorded history, CO2 and methane are insulators, and there are more of them in the atmosphere

Join the dots

Really? There are many models of reconstructed temperatures going back to about 1000 AD (because really, we don't have recorded temperatures prior to 1900 AD).

In many of those models, the Temperature increase since 1600 AD has been fairly steady (even including the current temperature increase).

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The deeper red the color on the graph, the more recent the scientific work that produced the temperature reconstruction.

Which means, the MOST recent work, puts the climate on a fairly steady increase since the little ice age in 1600. That's well before fossil fuels.




As for 99% consensus I meant about scientific community

We know what you are referring to. We are asking for proof that you didn't just pull the number out of your head.

Man... are you sure you aren't a Republican?
 
My personal beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. Your righteous attitude is rather amusing, though.

Isn't it though.



Shadowninty... you have yet to refute one of my statements. You have yet to justify a single one, ANY ONE, of your original statements about Liberals/Republicans. I'm waiting.
 
Isn't it though.

Shadowninty... you have yet to refute one of my statements. You have yet to justify a single one, ANY ONE, of your original statements about Liberals/Republicans. I'm waiting.

I thought the initial ridiculous post was by SamsungVibrant?
 
Back
Top Bottom