+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: Trumpled (Alternative Leading) (/thread-2312.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - flyboy77 - 02-10-2016
(02-10-2016, 10:45 PM)Mav link Wrote:Has the virus mutated in a way that now causes microcephaly? Is there something else which causes microcephaly which accompanies this Brasilian iteration of the virus but one which will follow the virus to the US and cause birth defects in the US? There's no doubt that Brasil has suffered a significant increase in microcephaly. The exact vector doesn't really matter. While there's a chance that the US will suffer the same increase, it will be an issue in the Presidential election which will be held s bit less than 9 months from now, a significant figure when it comes to childbirth.
Quote:There's no doubt that Brasil has suffered a significant increase in microcephaly.
Really?
Show me the numbers Mav....or was the record keeping/taking just sloppy or non existent previously?
An S or a Z - that is the question!
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Mav - 02-11-2016
I've noticed a weird trend on this site. Discussions or debates usually involve people putting their best arguments forward immediately and then discussing the merits of them. But on here, "discussions" are like poker games where cards are kept close to the chest. Instead of just saying, "You're wrong because of X, Y and Z", posters are instead saying, "You're wrong but I'm not going to tell you why - you'll have to figure it out yourself". Then follows a tedious exchange before said poster relents and starts to engage. Is the idea to build up some dramatic tension? In any event, I wish it would stop and people would get down to tin tacks quickly. I'm not interested in being a devil's advocate and I'm not intent on winning a debate at all costs. If someone else has a good point to make, I want to hear it.
I'm willing to wait for further medical and epidemiological developments which unfortunately will take time to occur. At the political level, though, the possibility that the Zika virus might invade the US and leave widespread birth defects in its wake will raise the issues of climate change and abortion. After all, even if this scare turns out to be a non-event, there will always be the possibility that real dangers will follow in its wake. After all, the ISIS attacks in Paris and the attack by ISIS admirers in San Bernadino haven't led to anything more recently, yet the hysteria inspired by them continues to be a real election issue. For middle America, a personal question would be asked about what should be done if a loved one contracts a virus which may create birth defects which will create lifelong impacts on the whole family. People are uncomfortable when told that they can do all the right things but still be dealt a bad hand, as with cancer.
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - madbluboy - 02-11-2016
I would just listen to the experts and not scribes with political agendas.
http://www.who.int/emergencies/zika-virus/situation-report/en/
http://www.who.int/features/qa/zika-pregnancy/en/
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - flyboy77 - 02-11-2016
(02-11-2016, 12:47 AM)madbluboy link Wrote:I would just listen to the experts and not scribes with political agendas.
http://www.who.int/emergencies/zika-virus/situation-report/en/
http://www.who.int/features/qa/zika-pregnancy/en/
Heck, for sure a UN body wouldn't have a political agenda!
IPCC anyone?
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Mav - 02-11-2016
Are you suggesting the IPCC should be even-handed when 97% of climate scientists support the climate change model?
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Mav - 02-11-2016
http://www.theage.com.au/world/zika-catholic-church-urged-to-rethink-abortion-over-the-outbreak-20160210-gmqx2f.html
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - flyboy77 - 02-11-2016
(02-11-2016, 01:28 AM)Mav link Wrote:Are you suggesting the IPCC should be even-handed when 97% of climate scientists support the climate change model?
Very trite Mav. Don't be a follower.... you know that stat is BS.
Do some more homework Mav.
Here's one decent source from a 3 second Google search. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - flyboy77 - 02-11-2016
just to finish that one off Mav, try
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta;jsessionid=F6AB42449095EC798501DCDFB7B8BA67.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org
Funnily enough the relevant stats are 97.1% of the 32.6% of papers that endorsed AGW.
In my world 97.1% of 32.6% = 31.6%.
But heck! We all know about stats!
Quote:We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. 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 abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - madbluboy - 02-11-2016
Hundreds of Australian scientist's jobs are being made redundant at the moment because they don't believe we need to invest anymore money in proving climate change because it's already proven.
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - flyboy77 - 02-11-2016
(02-11-2016, 02:31 AM)madbluboy link Wrote:Hundreds of Australian scientist's jobs are being made redundant at the moment because they don't believe we need to invest anymore money in proving climate change because it's already proven.
What exactly are you saying has been proven MBB?
Certainly, I agree that man does not do the planet any favours vis a vis pollution etc but nothing at all supports a proposition that an increase in CO2 levels cause an increase in temperatures....
In fact, global temperatures (whatever that means - how do you determine an average temperature for the world?) have been static or in decline for nearly 20 years now - all in the face of significantly higher CO2 levels.
Indeed, why is more CO2 a bad things in any event? Why pick on CO2 - after all, it's a cornerstone of all life on this planet!