WRONG. There was no "consensus" whether the nukes would go off. Are you retarded? It was KNOWN they would go off. The only question was what the yield would be.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Thousands March Through Snow Protesting Global Warming
- Thread starter Freewill
- Start date
WRONG. There was no "consensus" whether the nukes would go off. Are you retarded? It was KNOWN they would go off. The only question was what the yield would be.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
WRONG. There was no "consensus" whether the nukes would go off. Are you retarded? It was KNOWN they would go off. The only question was what the yield would be.
Damn interesting to watch how the liberal mind works, isn't it....if you can call that working.
WRONG. There was no "consensus" whether the nukes would go off. Are you retarded? It was KNOWN they would go off. The only question was what the yield would be.
Damn interesting to watch how the liberal mind works, isn't it....if you can call that working.
That's a progressive mind....doing what I don't know, but I agree with you it is not "working".
a consensus within the scientific community .. like when we went into space or exploded the first nuke. There were worries and doubters, but the scientific consensus was,...Consensus is a political term. Not a scientific one.Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity."Consensus" science...isn't science. It is political pure and simple. If I ask you what the speed of light is you will tell me a number (well you probably don't know it) and that number is either accurate or it's not. There is no "consensus" needed to know what that is. That..... is science.
scientific consensus - Google Search
you truly are in need of assistance here
WRONG. There was no "consensus" whether the nukes would go off. Are you retarded? It was KNOWN they would go off. The only question was what the yield would be.
For purposes of explanation through analogy for your childlike mind: Teller is the climate science denier here, but the consensus was Teller was wrong so with consensus the USA went forward with Trinity
Trinity: Teller's idea of igniting the atmosphere. Debunked Scientists risked destroying the earth during nuclear tests and CERN Metabunk
When
funny how Dante wasn't speaking to if the bomb WOULD go off.WRONG. There was no "consensus" whether the nukes would go off. Are you retarded? It was KNOWN they would go off. The only question was what the yield would be.
Damn interesting to watch how the liberal mind works, isn't it....if you can call that working.
the wingnut mind is always misreading and misinterpreting what is in front of it
a consensus within the scientific community .. like when we went into space or exploded the first nuke. There were worries and doubters, but the scientific consensus was,...Consensus is a political term. Not a scientific one.Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity."Consensus" science...isn't science. It is political pure and simple. If I ask you what the speed of light is you will tell me a number (well you probably don't know it) and that number is either accurate or it's not. There is no "consensus" needed to know what that is. That..... is science.
scientific consensus - Google Search
you truly are in need of assistance here
WRONG. There was no "consensus" whether the nukes would go off. Are you retarded? It was KNOWN they would go off. The only question was what the yield would be.
For purposes of explanation through analogy for your childlike mind: Teller is the climate science denier here, but the consensus was Teller was wrong so with consensus the USA went forward with Trinity
Trinity: Teller's idea of igniting the atmosphere. Debunked Scientists risked destroying the earth during nuclear tests and CERN Metabunk
When
Ummm. No. Every other scientist knew what they were dealing with. Teller (like the climatologists of today) was known for overstating the possibility of a fusion reaction starting from the detonation of a fission bomb.
This sort of idiocy is prevalent today with idiots claiming that the LHC will create a black hole that will consume the Earth. It is not a question of consensus. It is a matter of a lunatic making claims that have no basis in reality. Teller was no lunatic but he was pissed off that he had not been made head of the theoretical division of the Manhattan project and further he advocated for the creation of hydrogen bombs so his concern about the fission bombs and their atmospheric effects need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
He was a single scientist making the claims.
pretty simple when you step back from wingnut worldUmmm. No. Every other scientist knew what they were dealing with. Teller (like the climatologists of today) was known for overstating the possibility of a fusion reaction starting from the detonation of a fission bomb.a consensus within the scientific community .. like when we went into space or exploded the first nuke. There were worries and doubters, but the scientific consensus was,...Consensus is a political term. Not a scientific one.Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
scientific consensus - Google Search
you truly are in need of assistance here
WRONG. There was no "consensus" whether the nukes would go off. Are you retarded? It was KNOWN they would go off. The only question was what the yield would be.
For purposes of explanation through analogy for your childlike mind: Teller is the climate science denier here, but the consensus was Teller was wrong so with consensus the USA went forward with Trinity
Trinity: Teller's idea of igniting the atmosphere. Debunked Scientists risked destroying the earth during nuclear tests and CERN Metabunk
When
This sort of idiocy is prevalent today with idiots claiming that the LHC will create a black hole that will consume the Earth. It is not a question of consensus. It is a matter of a lunatic making claims that have no basis in reality. Teller was no lunatic but he was pissed off that he had not been made head of the theoretical division of the Manhattan project and further he advocated for the creation of hydrogen bombs so his concern about the fission bombs and their atmospheric effects need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
He was a single scientist making the claims.
Teller was outside of the consensus. See?
You and climate science deniers? Yep, outside of the consensus
pretty simple when you step back from wingnut worldUmmm. No. Every other scientist knew what they were dealing with. Teller (like the climatologists of today) was known for overstating the possibility of a fusion reaction starting from the detonation of a fission bomb.a consensus within the scientific community .. like when we went into space or exploded the first nuke. There were worries and doubters, but the scientific consensus was,...Consensus is a political term. Not a scientific one.
you truly are in need of assistance here
WRONG. There was no "consensus" whether the nukes would go off. Are you retarded? It was KNOWN they would go off. The only question was what the yield would be.
For purposes of explanation through analogy for your childlike mind: Teller is the climate science denier here, but the consensus was Teller was wrong so with consensus the USA went forward with Trinity
Trinity: Teller's idea of igniting the atmosphere. Debunked Scientists risked destroying the earth during nuclear tests and CERN Metabunk
When
This sort of idiocy is prevalent today with idiots claiming that the LHC will create a black hole that will consume the Earth. It is not a question of consensus. It is a matter of a lunatic making claims that have no basis in reality. Teller was no lunatic but he was pissed off that he had not been made head of the theoretical division of the Manhattan project and further he advocated for the creation of hydrogen bombs so his concern about the fission bombs and their atmospheric effects need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
He was a single scientist making the claims.
Teller was outside of the consensus. See?
You and climate science deniers? Yep, outside of the consensus
No, Teller was a fringe voice. There were facts (which he chose to ignore) and there was his OPINION. Were you half as smart as you think you are you would understand that.
No, Teller was a fringe voice. There were facts (which he chose to ignore) and there was his OPINION. Were you half as smart as you think you are you would understand that.pretty simple when you step back from wingnut worldUmmm. No. Every other scientist knew what they were dealing with. Teller (like the climatologists of today) was known for overstating the possibility of a fusion reaction starting from the detonation of a fission bomb.a consensus within the scientific community .. like when we went into space or exploded the first nuke. There were worries and doubters, but the scientific consensus was,...
you truly are in need of assistance here
WRONG. There was no "consensus" whether the nukes would go off. Are you retarded? It was KNOWN they would go off. The only question was what the yield would be.
For purposes of explanation through analogy for your childlike mind: Teller is the climate science denier here, but the consensus was Teller was wrong so with consensus the USA went forward with Trinity
Trinity: Teller's idea of igniting the atmosphere. Debunked Scientists risked destroying the earth during nuclear tests and CERN Metabunk
When
This sort of idiocy is prevalent today with idiots claiming that the LHC will create a black hole that will consume the Earth. It is not a question of consensus. It is a matter of a lunatic making claims that have no basis in reality. Teller was no lunatic but he was pissed off that he had not been made head of the theoretical division of the Manhattan project and further he advocated for the creation of hydrogen bombs so his concern about the fission bombs and their atmospheric effects need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
He was a single scientist making the claims.
Teller was outside of the consensus. See?
You and climate science deniers? Yep, outside of the consensus
exactly, a fringe voice as are you. The fringe is always outside of the consensus
see?
you've been handed your arse on a platter
SSDD and Westwall should incorporate their phrenology expertise into denialism, and predict climate based on the bumps on someone's head.
They can work in their reflexology expertise into it as well, and show everyone how foot massages affect climate.
After that, they can mix in some magic vanishing photons.
Finally, they can top it off with their astrology and homeopathy expertise, to get a grand unified theory of denialism.
And it would be less crazy than their current theories.
They can work in their reflexology expertise into it as well, and show everyone how foot massages affect climate.
After that, they can mix in some magic vanishing photons.
Finally, they can top it off with their astrology and homeopathy expertise, to get a grand unified theory of denialism.
And it would be less crazy than their current theories.
SSDD and Westwall should incorporate their phrenology expertise into denialism, and predict climate based on the bumps on someone's head.
They can work in their reflexology expertise into it as well, and show everyone how foot massages affect climate.
After that, they can mix in some magic vanishing photons.
Finally, they can top it off with their astrology and homeopathy expertise, to get a grand unified theory of denialism.
And it would be less crazy than their current theories.
And yet we're not the ones who are demanding that papers that counter the current wisdom not be published. We're not the ones claiming that the science is "settled" a term that doesn't exist in the scientific lexicon. We're not the ones constantly resorting to logic fail after logic fail to support our ideas like you and your incessant appeals to authority...no..that's you. We're not the ones demanding that sceptics be tossed in prison for having the temerity to challenge the high priests. Nope, not us...you once again.
Why are you so afraid of a opposing viewpoint?
No, Teller was a fringe voice. There were facts (which he chose to ignore) and there was his OPINION. Were you half as smart as you think you are you would understand that.pretty simple when you step back from wingnut worldUmmm. No. Every other scientist knew what they were dealing with. Teller (like the climatologists of today) was known for overstating the possibility of a fusion reaction starting from the detonation of a fission bomb.WRONG. There was no "consensus" whether the nukes would go off. Are you retarded? It was KNOWN they would go off. The only question was what the yield would be.
For purposes of explanation through analogy for your childlike mind: Teller is the climate science denier here, but the consensus was Teller was wrong so with consensus the USA went forward with Trinity
Trinity: Teller's idea of igniting the atmosphere. Debunked Scientists risked destroying the earth during nuclear tests and CERN Metabunk
When
This sort of idiocy is prevalent today with idiots claiming that the LHC will create a black hole that will consume the Earth. It is not a question of consensus. It is a matter of a lunatic making claims that have no basis in reality. Teller was no lunatic but he was pissed off that he had not been made head of the theoretical division of the Manhattan project and further he advocated for the creation of hydrogen bombs so his concern about the fission bombs and their atmospheric effects need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
He was a single scientist making the claims.
Teller was outside of the consensus. See?
You and climate science deniers? Yep, outside of the consensus
exactly, a fringe voice as are you. The fringe is always outside of the consensus
see?
you've been handed your arse on a platter
Really? The flat earthers were the consensus nimrod. So were the anti plate tectonics crowd and the Aristotelian cosmological group etc. etc. etc. The consensus crowd seems to be the most backward throughout history.
In each of those cases, improved observations, improved knowledge of astronomy, geography and physics led to better understanding that quickly came to dominate - to form a new consensus. In all of these cases, the new consensus was the correct view. There were holdouts - deniers. But eventually everyone came to realize they were simply holdouts who had nothing going for them in the way of evidence, logic, reason or scientific knowledge.
Sound familiar?
Sound familiar?
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
In each of those cases, improved observations, improved knowledge of astronomy, geography and physics led to better understanding that quickly came to dominate - to form a new consensus. In all of these cases, the new consensus was the correct view. There were holdouts - deniers. But eventually everyone came to realize they were simply holdouts who had nothing going for them in the way of evidence, logic, reason or scientific knowledge.
Sound familiar?
So why are you and your ilk the ones who say the science is settled and that we should not question you? You need to take a hard look in the mirror, you flat earther you... The "new consensus"? What the fuck are talking about? There was no consensus. It was one or two people going against the state or church and their SCIENCE IS SETTLED, Don't Question us, VIEW.. Just like those of us who are skeptical of the state today and their motives..
Consensus has always been a political term, not a scientific one..
No, Teller was a fringe voice. There were facts (which he chose to ignore) and there was his OPINION. Were you half as smart as you think you are you would understand that.pretty simple when you step back from wingnut worldUmmm. No. Every other scientist knew what they were dealing with. Teller (like the climatologists of today) was known for overstating the possibility of a fusion reaction starting from the detonation of a fission bomb.For purposes of explanation through analogy for your childlike mind: Teller is the climate science denier here, but the consensus was Teller was wrong so with consensus the USA went forward with Trinity
Trinity: Teller's idea of igniting the atmosphere. Debunked Scientists risked destroying the earth during nuclear tests and CERN Metabunk
When
This sort of idiocy is prevalent today with idiots claiming that the LHC will create a black hole that will consume the Earth. It is not a question of consensus. It is a matter of a lunatic making claims that have no basis in reality. Teller was no lunatic but he was pissed off that he had not been made head of the theoretical division of the Manhattan project and further he advocated for the creation of hydrogen bombs so his concern about the fission bombs and their atmospheric effects need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
He was a single scientist making the claims.
Teller was outside of the consensus. See?
You and climate science deniers? Yep, outside of the consensus
exactly, a fringe voice as are you. The fringe is always outside of the consensus
see?
you've been handed your arse on a platter
Really? The flat earthers were the consensus nimrod. So were the anti plate tectonics crowd and the Aristotelian cosmological group etc. etc. etc. The consensus crowd seems to be the most backward throughout history.
really? Gawd you are dumber than dirt. Religion versus science? try again
We're not the ones demanding that sceptics be tossed in prison for having the temerity to challenge the high priests. Nope, not us...you once again.
No, you are definitely the Stalinists who are demanding that the real skeptics -- that is, the climate scientists -- be jailed. For example, all of the denier Stalinists here still want Dr. Mann to be sentenced to the gulag for daring to disagree with TheParty.
Why are you so afraid of a opposing viewpoint?
Nobody here on the rational side is suppressing any viewpoints or calling for scientists to be jailed. That's a kook denier sacred cult myth, and, as this thread shows, you use that big lie to justify your own bad behavior.
Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
Let's, for the sake of argument, ignore all the data and say global warming is occurring.
Now answer me this one question:
How does protesting stop it?
I agree. Protesting doesn't do anything. US patriots didn't hold marches against the British, they used 'other means.'
- May 20, 2009
- 144,618
- 67,100
- 2,330
Climate "science" has been reduced to turning on the Weather Channel, blaming the current headline story on "ManMade Global Warming!!!" and then calling anyone who asks for proof or evidence a "Denier"
It's not even in the same Universe as science
It's not even in the same Universe as science
- May 20, 2009
- 144,618
- 67,100
- 2,330
Remember, "Denier" and "Consensus" are Cult words, and are never used by scientists
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,706
- 28,025
- 2,180
sorry tooth, that graph is still wrong. you need to find a new one.Hey! can you people show us just one climate model that was even close to be being right? just one.
Oh dear. We've got a live one! He's actually fallen for the big denier lie that the models were wrong. He really is that gullible, and he's here proudly bragging about how gullible he was to the rest of his herd.
Anyone living outside of the People's Democratic Republic of Denierstan understand the models have been spot on.
You got some splainin' do do, Mr. Right. How is it you're so completely out of touch with reality?
And don't yell at me. I'm just the messenger, pointing out you've been bamboozled by your cult.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 503
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 333
- Replies
- 78
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 42
- Replies
- 400
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 79
- Views
- 254
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8101
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-