GOP, businesses torched AOC for doubting existence of smash-and-grab robberies
- Thread starter AndrewX
- Start date
Mandrill adheres to the curious, and unsubstantiated, idea that judges have a superior understanding of everything, so whatever they decide about any subject must be correct. Of course, the reality is that the role of judges is just to determine disputes between litigants - for the simple social value of resolving the disputes, which is a very different role than being the final arbiter of truth (scientific or otherwise). Odd that a lawyer would have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system.
C'mon. How many people with sub university IQ's have you dealt with and how many university grads??.... Sure, you get kids who don't want to go to university and are smart as heck. But most kids who don't go to university these days can't get in academically. And there's a huge fucking difference.
My sister teaches community college and deals with sub university kids all the time. Many are dumb as fuck and lazy to boot. MTG and Boebert fall into that category. Cawthorne might be a little smarter, but is such a corrupt, grifting little turd that it makes scant difference.
If someone has university level smarts - especially a known school like Boston College - they can handle political issues and political reasoning. AOC is really young and that's why her solutions are sometimes impractical. That's lack of life experience, not dummz. You deal with smart 20-somethings, that's what they're like. Just like AOC.
Point taken, Dutch. Next time we have multi-billion $$$ environmental / resource business litigation, we'll let the counter dude at Subway make the call.
Judges aren't that smart and they don't really have a lifetime of experience in processing and assessing information and coming to a decision. I was mistaken.
C'mon, MTG and Boebert are definitely dumb, no doubt about that. I'd go out on a limb and say Cawthorne is too...but don't make it out like AOC and her credentials a testament of her being some type of menza...she isn't...in paper yes, but IRL she isn't the sharpest tool in the shed...
I've seen her. She strikes me as smart, but not seasoned or practical. That's being young. Hey, I was young once too.
I'd like to claim that I was once the male AOC, but I wasn't anything as fuckable!
Again.....Get use to it (memes)
This is factual information as the Urban Heat Island effect has been ignored for decades
It is quite possible a large portion of the "1.0" c" rise in the surface data set is due to ongoing urbanization, to go along with the inadequate coverage, data errors and the fiddling of data
Well since the IPCC did not recognize Phil Jones / Michael Manns fraud, they will continue to ignore the Urban Heat Island effect
Nope the Urban Heat Island effect is real
If you want spin go listen to Catherine McKenna or AOC
That is obvious
Once again
A court does not determine science
Just like an opinion poll does not determine science
Scientific theory is determined by experimental observation.
Taught to you in your first high school science class
You know nothing about my scientific training or understanding
Do not confuse activists with scientists
Scientist do not prevert the peer review process, ,publish fraudulent hockey stick graphs , refuse to share data or fiddle with the data
And it should be so painfully obvious that a change of 0.01% of atmospheric composition can not possibly drive a physically process capable of creating the catastrophic disasters being promoted
I should not have to explain this to a grown up
Secondly when I state the absorption is saturated at 15 microns wavelength, it is not spin
This is a fact , backed up by numerous recent studies
In science one does not get to ignore facts simply because you do not understand them or worse because you do not like these facts
I think you do not think
This is a scientific issue which has sadly become a political issue
BTW I do not hate lefties
I do wonder why they are incapable of processing simple logic
BTW I noticed you completely avoided/ ignored the logarithmic dependency of concentration for absorption as well as the saturation
Ignoring the physical laws of nature to spread propaganda is "Spin"
Do not ever accuse me of spinning anything
Last edited:
Yeah right
I have forgotten more science than you will ever understand
You did not like the same message as described by Dr. Richard Feynman
So which should I use ?
and "neither" is not an acceptable response
or
A court does not determine science
Just like an opinion poll does not determine science
Scientific theory is determined by experimental observation.
Taught to you in your first high school science class
Last edited:
As slow as our justice system moves, it actually operates too quickly to adequately educate judges in areas outside of their expertise (which would include EVERY scientific question). The courts, after all, have limited time and resources. However, courts deliver the rough justice necessary to dissuade litigants from attempting to kill each other to resolve their disputes, so they accomplish something of value.
In a typical trial involving expert testimony, a judge might hear from such experts for 1- 4 days at most. No one can become fully educated on an area of scientific study in that short a period of time (assuming the judge in question even has the aptitude for such study). In many cases involving COVID measures, Judges aren't even requiring expert testimony, but are rather accepting statements of generally accepted scientific principles as announced by public health officials as if that were irrefutable evidence. Judges just apply convenient rules of thumb to determine which expert evidence they will rely upon. These rules have nothing to do with the rigorous standards applied by science.
Judges are experienced in making decisions - WITHIN THE CONTEXT PROVIDED FOR THEM TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. Nothing more.
Last edited:
You should read you meme… you might learn something.Yeah right
I have forgotten more science than you will ever understand
You did not like the same message as described by Dr. Richard Feynman
So which should I use
and "neither" is not an acceptable response
or
A court does not determine science
Just like an opinion poll does not determine science
Scientific theory is determined by experimental observation.
Taught to you in your first high school science class
Big Oil not only knows judges aren't that smart. They know judges can
be idiots when it comes to climate change.That's why they have reformed
themselves from climate change deniers into climate change believers for
their protection against future climate lawsuits.
Actually he would have had lots of observational data
but like climate alarmist the 16th century courts/ church was willing to ignore what they did not want to see/ understand
you should read it, you might learn something.
I have always understood scientific theory is not determined by consensus or the courts
you questioned his point and wanted a link to the study he referenced
you know, your standard ploy of trying to undermine others credibility without you bringing anything of value to the table
Last edited:
No... you choose political bias.
And my example did not have the courts deciding. My example was big oil agreeing 100% with the prosecution's EVIDENCE. There was no court decree as you would like to paint it.
Oh boy
This is getting juvenile
argued in a court of law
That evidence did not contain any reference to saturation did it?
That evidence did not contain any reference to water vapor , convection, jet streams deep ocean currents, aerosols, ocean volcanic activity photosynthiesis elevation, the urban heat island effect etc, etc etc did it?
There has been 50 years of failed climate predictions.
How is that for evidence for you ?
re political bias:
scientific facts do not have a political bias
Last edited:
Your 15 micron argument, absorbing radiation sounds like incoming sunlight and heat... the rest of us are dealing with heat once its hit the earth... it gets trapped. I think you are describing apple's, and the scientists are talking climate change.
