Posted on Jul 14, 2016
Do you think Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg should resign?
6.84K
102
40
5
5
0
Trump is calling for Justice Ginsburg to resign and many of his supporters agree. This issue is lighting up on social media as you would expect with Trump leading the charge to oust Ruth Ginsburg.
Posted in these groups: 
Supreme Court
Donald Trump
Supreme Court Donald Trump
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
2
2
0
Capt Seid Waddell
CPT L S, for one thing, atmospheric CO2 level is a lagging indicator for climate change. The CO2 level responds to climate change with an 800-1200 year lag time.
Atmospheric CO2 level is the result of climate change, not the driver.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php
Atmospheric CO2 level is the result of climate change, not the driver.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php
A weekly review and repository of scientific research findings pertaining to carbon dioxide and global change.
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
CPT L S, "I am just going on your data, I have no idea if it is even good data Sir."
This is the reason you should do the reading for yourself if you wish to understand the subject well enough to have an opinion on it. There is a world of information out there from many disciplines that dovetail together to reinforce one another.
For an overview, I might suggest "The Chilling Stars" by Henrick Svensmark & Nigel Calder. It covers research from many different independent disciplines all in one place that gives one the larger picture.
This is the reason you should do the reading for yourself if you wish to understand the subject well enough to have an opinion on it. There is a world of information out there from many disciplines that dovetail together to reinforce one another.
For an overview, I might suggest "The Chilling Stars" by Henrick Svensmark & Nigel Calder. It covers research from many different independent disciplines all in one place that gives one the larger picture.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
It is far more than 3% - it is the vast majority.
"Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings."
http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/
"Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings."
http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch
The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it, "The '97% consensus' article is poorly...
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
CPT L S, only mainstream in the liberal/progressive media. Scientific papers tell quite a different story.
AGW is a liberal secular religion based upon faith alone.
AGW is a liberal secular religion based upon faith alone.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Nope no more than when Scalia starting spewing religious dogma from the bench.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Brian Austin
Ironically Scalia and Ginsburg were very close friends. Their families would go on vacations together, share holidays together. They just never discussed politics outside the Court.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
I think so...She is out of her mental capacities as far as I am concerned. She can't even stay awake during live coverage of events. I don't wish her any harm but I wish she would retire.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Justice's are allowed to have an opinion. She has yet to demonstrate any bias in the courtroom towards Trump. As long as she is able to separate her political position from her interpretations of the law then there is no reason fro her to resign.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Not until after the election. Until then, I hope she keeps it up. It will drive up voter turnout and people will realize SCOTUS appointments may be more important than POTUS elections, especially if Congress is divided.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google