Jump to content

Science, AntiScience, and Censorship


Husker_Du

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Le duke said:


Here are meta-analyses of the literature. They disagree with your Twitter source.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1003187107


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

from your own source

 We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. 

so what is 97% of 32.6%? 

31.6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from your own source
 We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. 
so what is 97% of 32.6%? 
31.6


You might want to reread what you just wrote.

What is 32.6 divided by 33.6?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Le duke said:

 


You might want to reread what you just wrote.

What is 32.6 divided by 33.6?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

it says... of the 11K papers written... 60 some percent had NO position on AGW

32.6% said that Anthropogenic global warming  AGW

is the cause of our global warming.. in other words humans.

then it says.. of those expressing an opinion... in other words... the 32.6 % and .7% who rejected... so I was actually wrong...

i should have posted 97% of 33.3%  b/c i didn't count the .7% who are against AGW did actually have a position on the subject.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

It's like now that immigrants get visas and can become police officers (after they went through training and passed all the necessary requirements.)

It's... well, not sure how to describe it other than it sounds legitimate to me.

If you remember, the stereotypical Irish policeman from old school movies was based on the fact that many Irish immigrants did, in fact, become police officers. They were immigrants and were in a position to take whatever jobs they could get. Being a police officer, at the time, was one of the less desirable jobs available. So, a perfect fit.

Doesn't sound all that much different than today.

 

Federal law requires all law enforcement officers and sheriffs to be citizens. (Not on visa, not green card holders, but citizens, natural or via passing citizenship test). California, Colorado and now Illinois have laws circumventing that requirement.

Edited by DJT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DJT said:

Federal law requires all law enforcement officers and sheriffs to be citizens. (Not on visa, not green card holders, but citizens, natural or via passing citizenship test). California, Colorado and now Illinois have laws circumventing that requirement.

in fairness, they are probably grasping at straws... who would want to be a cop in those places... with repeat criminals returned without charges so often...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Theo Brixton said:

I can't believe we are almost on page 3 of this thread and no one mentioned covid origins. Literally the most retarded attempt by the establishment to say "the science is settled" during the whole covid debacle.

When you mix science with politics you get politics. This is readily apparent in all things covid-related and no doubt many other fields with political implications. "Follow the science" always meant "don't question the establishment narrative". And as we've found with covid, the "experts" got just about every single thing wrong that they tried to censor which, of course, is why they tried to censor it in the first place.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Theo Brixton said:

I can't believe we are almost on page 3 of this thread and no one mentioned covid origins. Literally the most ***I am an idiot and can't use a better adjective***ed attempt by the establishment to say "the science is settled" during the whole covid debacle.

When you mix science with politics you get politics. This is readily apparent in all things covid-related and no doubt many other fields with political implications. "Follow the science" always meant "don't question the establishment narrative". And as we've found with covid, the "experts" got just about every single thing wrong that they tried to censor which, of course, is why they tried to censor it in the first place.

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Federal law requires all law enforcement officers and sheriffs to be citizens. (Not on visa, not green card holders, but citizens, natural or via passing citizenship test). California, Colorado and now Illinois have laws circumventing that requirement.

Please cite any US law that states that. I’ll wait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Buddy, you realize that there’s a difference between federal law enforcement and state law enforcement, right?

That only covers federal agencies, such as the FBI, DEA, DHS, etc. The FBI is not your local PD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Le duke said:


Buddy, you realize that there’s a difference between federal law enforcement and state law enforcement, right?

That only covers federal agencies, such as the FBI, DEA, DHS, etc. The FBI is not your local PD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re citing one blog… which only says that it is up to the individual agencies in certain states. There are a dozen articles in a quick search that refer to it being federal law for all police officers and sheriffs to be citizens, so who is wrong? I don’t know, and I’m not going to dig through statutes. Either way, IL isn’t even requiring the applicant to be a permanent resident (green card holder), like most of the other states allowing non-citizens to apply.

https://www.mystateline.com/news/local-news/bill-to-allow-noncitizens-to-become-illinois-police-officers-heads-to-governors-desk/amp/

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/chicago/news/illinois-legislation-would-allow-non-u-s-citizens-to-become-police-officers/
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DJT said:

I was going to post that last night on the nutty ‘murica (though not America) thread but fell asleep!

sure ... you were taking a dog nap ... its ok, just admin it ... nothing wrong with that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re citing one blog… which only says that it is up to the individual agencies in certain states. There are a dozen articles in a quick search that refer to it being federal law for all police officers and sheriffs to be citizens, so who is wrong? I don’t know, and I’m not going to dig through statutes. Either way, IL isn’t even requiring the applicant to be a permanent resident (green card holder), like most of the other states allowing non-citizens to apply.[/url]
https://www.mystateline.com/news/local-news/bill-to-allow-noncitizens-to-become-illinois-police-officers-heads-to-governors-desk/amp/
[/url]https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/chicago/news/illinois-legislation-would-allow-non-u-s-citizens-to-become-police-officers/
[/url][/url]  
[/url]  


I didn’t cite any blogs. That was the person I quoted.

I asked to be provided a federal statute. No one has provided one yet.
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what happened there.

I tried to say something along the lines of:

I didn’t quote any blogs or cite any sources. A person that I quoted above? Yes.

I asked people to cite federal law relating to requirements for local PD to be US citizens. No one has done that yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Not sure what happened there.

I tried to say something along the lines of:

I didn’t quote any blogs or cite any sources. A person that I quoted above? Yes.

I asked people to cite federal law relating to requirements for local PD to be US citizens. No one has done that yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like I said, I was quoting several news articles, and I’m not going to dig through federal statutes to see where that’s coming from, if from anywhere at all… maybe that’s my fault for trusting any news… we should all know better by now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DJT said:

Federal law requires all law enforcement officers and sheriffs to be citizens. (Not on visa, not green card holders, but citizens, natural or via passing citizenship test). California, Colorado and now Illinois have laws circumventing that requirement.

i do find this interesting

This means that if you have DACA (or are completely undocumented), it's illegal for you to buy or own guns or even go to a gun range and fire weapons (“possession” can mean just having something in your hands).Apr 19, 2023

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of censorship, I challenge any & all to post forthwith and herein a story about your favorite w r a s s l e r.  You must use the term at least once (you will recieve more points with multiple) in your story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...