Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.astronomy > #273127 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-20 10:08 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-08-31 17:17 +0200 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 97 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.astronomy
The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 10:08 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-20 19:57 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 17:09 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 05:10 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 08:24 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 20:53 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 17:01 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 17:12 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 09:58 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 08:15 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 10:23 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-22 16:47 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:45 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 08:10 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 11:27 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-22 17:38 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-22 16:49 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-22 17:51 -0400
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-22 23:29 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:28 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:16 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 09:11 +0100
2 T-Annoy find your own evidence (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 05:51 -0500
Re: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 12:15 +0100
Re: 2 T-Annoy proves he is an asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:26 -0500
Re: 2 T-Annoy proves he is an asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:38 -0500
Re: 2 T-Annoy proves he is an asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:40 -0500
Re: 2 T-Annoy proves he is an asshole (was find your own evidence) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 17:45 +0100
T-Annoy proves he is still an asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 11:59 -0500
Re: T-Annoy proves he is still an asshole (was find your own evidence) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 18:19 +0100
T-Annoy proves he is still a big asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 12:45 -0500
Jim proves he can't see people impeach themselves "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:29 -0500
Re: Jim proves he can't see people impeach themselves je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:31 -0700
Re: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:47 -0500
Caught Kent in a BIG LIE (was: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit)) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:14 -0500
Re: Caught Kent in a BIG LIE (was: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 15:00 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:46 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:50 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 21:07 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-22 15:11 -0400
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 22:57 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-22 21:17 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-22 14:42 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-22 22:58 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 00:43 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 00:16 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 06:05 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:12 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 01:16 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 17:35 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 05:37 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 08:41 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 06:55 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-21 07:40 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:34 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 14:45 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:52 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 22:53 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-22 08:42 -0400
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 09:20 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 09:53 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:16 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 11:13 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-22 18:02 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 17:12 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-21 21:36 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 20:17 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:59 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:07 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-23 09:07 +0100
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 06:08 +0200
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 21:22 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-22 21:31 -0700
Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut: (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 10:43 -0500
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut: Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 19:38 +0200
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:08 -0500
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 21:47 +0200
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 12:59 -0700
Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut: (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 11:38 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:19 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:10 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 10:43 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 06:27 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 12:59 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:02 -0400
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 15:39 -0500
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 14:05 -0700
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 21:10 +0000
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-27 18:17 -0400
Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-28 06:31 +0200
Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-28 13:54 -0400
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 04:42 +0200
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 04:09 +0000
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 18:12 +0200
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-31 03:17 -0400
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-31 03:16 -0400
Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 17:17 +0200
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fs4ftap1uvg2rnq3su574en179r41u2qgk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #273176 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:41:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>wrote in message >
>> You will continue to be minimized, laughed at and dismissed as
>> the broken-brained little kook that you are until you are able to
>> explain how your kooky little scenario can violate several laws
>> of physics.
>
>You mean your laws of Physics and not Newton's laws. I've seen your math
>and how you get miles deep when it should be meters deep is beyond me.
>
So the nukes were at least 37 meters deep?
This is what you really want to claim?
>Plus you can try your hardest to keep your lies about the Ted/Barbara
>bullshit but the fact remains most all those calls were scripted as proven
>by the similarity between flights, the terms that would not be used in real
>life and the fact the scripts had a stewardess making calls when that would
>be the last thing she would have done because of her training.
>
And you know of her training, how?
>In other words you might want to check out what Rebekah Roth stated about
>the obvious scripting of all the calls made on 9/11.01. See:
>"Airline whistleblower solves 9/11"
>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/31/airline911/
Here is where the whole of the page loses all credibility:
"Once on the ground, selected flight attendants and passengers were
guided (or forced) to place cell phone calls, during which they read
from scripts prepared by the perpetrators."
Only one call was made with a cell phone. The rest were made with
sky/air phones.
>
>So, I'll say it again in case you missed it. When you look at all the phone
>calls together the similarities between flights prove something was screwy
Not to the educated mind.
>and then the phrases people used also proved things where funny and then
>when they had a Stewardess making calls that wasn't even real because they
>are trained not to bring attention to themselves during a hijacking.
That they are in uniform draws attention to them, stupid. It's
not as if making a call would in any way enhance the attention.
>So
>basically the calls made from the four alleged flights were scripted or
>phony phone calls.
And yet, you offer no evidence of this.
>
>Plus if someone really sprayed pepper spray on a flight it would have stunk
>up everywhere on that flight and not just part of it so that wasn't true to
>life either.
Huh?
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 10:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <SeSdnU68r_vcBUXInZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273223 |
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fs4ftap1uvg2rnq3su574en179r41u2qgk@4ax.com... > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:41:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> >>"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> >>wrote in message > >>> You will continue to be minimized, laughed at and dismissed as >>> the broken-brained little kook that you are until you are able to >>> explain how your kooky little scenario can violate several laws >>> of physics. >> >>You mean your laws of Physics and not Newton's laws. I've seen your math >>and how you get miles deep when it should be meters deep is beyond me. >> > > So the nukes were at least 37 meters deep? > This is what you really want to claim? Why not just see for yourself at: >>Plus you can try your hardest to keep your lies about the Ted/Barbara >>bullshit but the fact remains most all those calls were scripted as proven >>by the similarity between flights, the terms that would not be used in >>real >>life and the fact the scripts had a stewardess making calls when that >>would >>be the last thing she would have done because of her training. >> > > And you know of her training, how? Because of another flight attendant you Television Hugger. And I even mention her in the next paragraph. >>In other words you might want to check out what Rebekah Roth stated about >>the obvious scripting of all the calls made on 9/11.01. See: >>"Airline whistleblower solves 9/11" >>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/31/airline911/ > > Here is where the whole of the page loses all credibility: > > > "Once on the ground, selected flight attendants and passengers were > guided (or forced) to place cell phone calls, during which they read > from scripts prepared by the perpetrators." > > > Only one call was made with a cell phone. The rest were made with > sky/air phones. > >> >>So, I'll say it again in case you missed it. When you look at all the >>phone >>calls together the similarities between flights prove something was screwy > > Not to the educated mind. Love is blind are you are not just in love with your Television you probably even sleep with your Television in the room. <G> >>and then the phrases people used also proved things where funny and then >>when they had a Stewardess making calls that wasn't even real because they >>are trained not to bring attention to themselves during a hijacking. > > That they are in uniform draws attention to them, stupid. It's > not as if making a call would in any way enhance the attention. It is still against what they are taught. >>So >>basically the calls made from the four alleged flights were scripted or >>phony phone calls. > > And yet, you offer no evidence of this. Rebekah Roth sure did and why didn't you bother with her evidence? Oh yeah, that's right you are in love with your Television set and love is blind. >>Plus if someone really sprayed pepper spray on a flight it would have >>stunk >>up everywhere on that flight and not just part of it so that wasn't true >>to >>life either. > > Huh? There was a story about someone being sprayed with pepper spray but that story had to be complete BS because if it were true all sorts of people would have had trouble with it despite where they were in the jet. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 06:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ksOdncKcSKSgM0TInZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273277 |
alt.astronomy put back in "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mrbj3n$iq9$2@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:fs4ftap1uvg2rnq3su574en179r41u2qgk@4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:41:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >>>>and then the phrases people used also proved things where funny and then >>>>when they had a Stewardess making calls that wasn't even real because >>>>they >>>>are trained not to bring attention to themselves during a hijacking. >>> >>> That they are in uniform draws attention to them, stupid. It's >>> not as if making a call would in any way enhance the attention. > >>It is still against what they are taught. > > No, it's not, k00k. They are trained that they should try to get as much > info as they can to ATC, if possible, so that they know the plane has > been hijacked in the first place, that it may do unexpected things, who > the hijackers are (including seat assignments), what they want and what > they intend to do, etc. You will have to state the source of your bullshit because my source was a genuine flight attendant. <G> One of the other things Rebekah Roth stated was someone was asked where they were and they were not sure but Nuke York City stretches for miles so if they had been over Nuke York City they would have known. There are just too many inconsistencies in the phone calls to prove they were from airborne jets. And do not forget the biggest inconsistency with the Great 9/11 Hoax and that is the following is not a photo of a jet fuel collapse it is a photo of two NCDs or two Nuclear Controlled Demolitions. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 12:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ca-dnVgoLJwRlEfInZ2dnUU7-emdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273387 |
"Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:chine.bleu-2EA953.10462023082015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... > > Them gosh darn reanimator. They get up to all kinds of hijinks. This just in and it shows after the millions of dollars we paid NIST they gave us complete and udder bullshit about why so very little remained of the Twin Towers. "NIST's Questionable Collapse Initiation Sequence" Published on Jun 28, 2015 ... "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." https://youtu.be/zvCuMULutHs?list=PLm5UJ3igmxaIBJw8yvK1-a9H_11kBDS8W
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 14:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mrd1o6$cd3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #273387 |
On 8/23/2015 1:46 PM, Siri Cruz wrote: > > Them gosh darn reanimator. They get up to all kinds of hijinks. Re Animator was a great film. I loved the part where the headless guy was walking around holding his head and then proceeded to give oral to a girl with it. Talk about giving 'head'.... -- "Are we going to fight or are we going to stand around all day?" https://goo.gl/TU0Xr6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-27 15:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) |
| Message-ID | <su2dnbXIAZcF6ELInZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273387 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mrnnv3$anq$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>alt.astronomy put back in > > And removed. > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:mrbj3n$iq9$2@pcls7.std.com... > >>>>It is still against what they are taught. >>> >>> No, it's not, k00k. They are trained that they should try to get as >>> much >>> info as they can to ATC, if possible, so that they know the plane has >>> been hijacked in the first place, that it may do unexpected things, who >>> the hijackers are (including seat assignments), what they want and what >>> they intend to do, etc. > >>You will have to state the source of your bullshit because my source was a >>genuine flight attendant. <G> > > My source was a flight attendant. > > Oh, not just any flight attendant, but one that was scheduled to work on > AA Flight 11 on 9/11/01. Except she called in sick that day. Her > daughter Amy is friends with my daughter. > > Meanwhile, perhaps you can ponder how Amy got her name. > >>And do not forget the biggest inconsistency with the Great 9/11 Hoax > > You mean the hoax where kooktards claim there was a nuke (or 34) set off > on 9/11? That hoax? I'm not sure whether the biggest inconsistency with > that hoax is the lack of radiation, the lack of any seismic signature, the > lack of any EMP, the requirement for those nukes being 34-96 *miles* > underground, the lack of nuke damage to all the other buildings in lower > Manhattan, or... Those are all huge inconsistencies with the kooktard's > 9/11 hoax! ROTFLMAO because there was a seismic signature. You just have to realize when the North Tower shook 12 seconds before it was vaporized the North Tower itself was the seismograph that recorded an event the USGS removed from their graphs. So that means not only did the USGS lie but so did NORAD, the FAA, the EPA, NNSA, NIST. And I'm sure I can keep adding to the government agencies that helped to cover up facts in the Great 9/11 Hoax. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "%" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-27 14:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) |
| Message-ID | <8nkjba.s0t.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #274067 |
Rocky wrote: > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message > news:mrnnv3$anq$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>> alt.astronomy put back in >> >> And removed. >> >>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>> news:mrbj3n$iq9$2@pcls7.std.com... >> >>>>> It is still against what they are taught. >>>> >>>> No, it's not, k00k. They are trained that they should try to get >>>> as much >>>> info as they can to ATC, if possible, so that they know the plane >>>> has been hijacked in the first place, that it may do unexpected >>>> things, who the hijackers are (including seat assignments), what >>>> they want and what they intend to do, etc. >> >>> You will have to state the source of your bullshit because my >>> source was a genuine flight attendant. <G> >> >> My source was a flight attendant. >> >> Oh, not just any flight attendant, but one that was scheduled to >> work on AA Flight 11 on 9/11/01. Except she called in sick that >> day. Her daughter Amy is friends with my daughter. >> >> Meanwhile, perhaps you can ponder how Amy got her name. >> >>> And do not forget the biggest inconsistency with the Great 9/11 Hoax >> >> You mean the hoax where kooktards claim there was a nuke (or 34) set >> off on 9/11? That hoax? I'm not sure whether the biggest >> inconsistency with that hoax is the lack of radiation, the lack of >> any seismic signature, the lack of any EMP, the requirement for >> those nukes being 34-96 *miles* underground, the lack of nuke damage >> to all the other buildings in lower Manhattan, or... Those are all >> huge inconsistencies with the kooktard's 9/11 hoax! > > ROTFLMAO because there was a seismic signature. You just have to > realize when the North Tower shook 12 seconds before it was vaporized > the North Tower itself was the seismograph that recorded an event the > USGS removed from their graphs. > > So that means not only did the USGS lie but so did NORAD, the FAA, > the EPA, NNSA, NIST. And I'm sure I can keep adding to the > government agencies that helped to cover up facts in the Great 9/11 > Hoax. > > Rocky why are you the only one that believes what you say
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-27 21:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) |
| Message-ID | <tua4bc-jns.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #274067 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > ROTFLMAO because there was a seismic signature. You just have to realize > when the North Tower shook 12 seconds before it was vaporized the North > Tower itself was the seismograph that recorded an event the USGS removed > from their graphs. Yes, there were seismic signatures from the planes hitting the ground and the building collapsing but they were not USGS seismographs, kook. If you had actually read the links and the links in the links you would know who the multiple seismographs involved were being run by, but you didn't do that, did you, you raving, insane, babbling, kook. When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet. There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events. A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a fact that is widely known and trivial to verify. Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data. Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources. Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any governmental agency. This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/how-to-find-a-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html Be sure to follow all the links in the above links. <snip remaining kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-27 18:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) |
| Message-ID | <op.x31r7kn2tm21m2@benson.localhost> |
| In reply to | #274067 |
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:39:11 -0400, Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message > news:mrnnv3$anq$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>> alt.astronomy put back in >> >> And removed. >> >>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>> news:mrbj3n$iq9$2@pcls7.std.com... >> >>>>> It is still against what they are taught. >>>> >>>> No, it's not, k00k. They are trained that they should try to get as >>>> much >>>> info as they can to ATC, if possible, so that they know the plane has >>>> been hijacked in the first place, that it may do unexpected things, >>>> who >>>> the hijackers are (including seat assignments), what they want and >>>> what >>>> they intend to do, etc. >> >>> You will have to state the source of your bullshit because my source >>> was a >>> genuine flight attendant. <G> >> >> My source was a flight attendant. >> >> Oh, not just any flight attendant, but one that was scheduled to work on >> AA Flight 11 on 9/11/01. Except she called in sick that day. Her >> daughter Amy is friends with my daughter. >> >> Meanwhile, perhaps you can ponder how Amy got her name. >> >>> And do not forget the biggest inconsistency with the Great 9/11 Hoax >> >> You mean the hoax where kooktards claim there was a nuke (or 34) set off >> on 9/11? That hoax? I'm not sure whether the biggest inconsistency >> with >> that hoax is the lack of radiation, the lack of any seismic signature, >> the >> lack of any EMP, the requirement for those nukes being 34-96 *miles* >> underground, the lack of nuke damage to all the other buildings in lower >> Manhattan, or... Those are all huge inconsistencies with the kooktard's >> 9/11 hoax! > > ROTFLMAO because there was a seismic signature. You just have to realize > when the North Tower shook 12 seconds before it was vaporized the North > Tower itself was the seismograph that recorded an event the USGS removed > from their graphs. > > So that means not only did the USGS lie but so did NORAD, the FAA, the > EPA, > NNSA, NIST. And I'm sure I can keep adding to the government agencies > that > helped to cover up facts in the Great 9/11 Hoax. > > Rocky > why do i also have the feeling that you are one of these people who believe that the "government can't do anything right", except when some hyper-complex conspiracy is involved. that would be as k0oky as denying what a majority of climate scientists have to say about climate change. -- http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg http://cafepress.com/kooktown http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :) if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try: http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 06:31 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) |
| Message-ID | <e01ed885a055f4f6646c537f0f965630@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #274098 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x31r7kn2tm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:39:11 -0400, Rocky (aka > Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC) > <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> ROT<SMACKAKOOK!> > why do i also have the feeling that you are one of these people who > believe that the "government can't do anything right", except when some > hyper-complex conspiracy is involved. > > that would be as k0oky as denying what a majority of climate scientists > have to say about climate change. Or as kooky as believing a majority of scientists agree about something which they clearly don't: Klimate Katastrophe Kook K'lame #4: 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming SPNAK! #4 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The "97% of climate scientists agree" is an outright lie: Message-ID: <c407c7d08fb6911ec5f4f90971e41c78@dizum.com> ========================================================= The LibTard environmental whackadoodles keep bleating about "97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is human caused!". Where did this 97% figure come from? When you explore its lineage, it turns out to be about as convincing as a Chicago election. The most prominent form of it comes from a professor in Australia named John Cook at the University of Queensland. What Cook's study purported to do was to review the abstracts (not the entire papers, just the abstracts) of 11,000 climate science articles. But when you read the first paragraph of Cook's abstract for his study, it says, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming, 32.6% endorsed anthropogenic global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were uncertain." That means only 1/3 of those papers had an opinion on human-caused global warming. The next sentence in Cook's abstract for his study says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing the warming." 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482 (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed) papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on. But then, LibTard environmental whackadoodles are gullible and stupid... they can't pull their heads out of liberalism's ass long enough to do their own research, and even if they could, that hard math eludes them. ========================================================= Doh! Stoooopid libtard *still* can't figure out that hard math. LOL -- Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey) 5907 Stanton Ave. Pittsburgh, PA DildoRider admits he's stoooopid: MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com> ================================================= >> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's >> damaged your brain, DildoRider. > then it appears that you like shooting fish in > barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are. Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell. <snicker> ================================================= DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com> ================================================= > so what you're saying is that your targets for attack > have to be really stupid or else you can't manage? =================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 13:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) |
| Message-ID | <op.x33aoip9tm21m2@benson.localhost> |
| In reply to | #274137 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:31:37 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of > 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as > root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x31r7kn2tm21m2@benson.localhost> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:39:11 -0400, Rocky (aka >> Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC) >> <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > >>> ROT<SMACKAKOOK!> > >> why do i also have the feeling that you are one of these people who >> believe that the "government can't do anything right", except when some >> hyper-complex conspiracy is involved. >> >> that would be as k0oky as denying what a majority of climate scientists >> have to say about climate change. > > Or as kooky as believing a majority of scientists agree about > something which they clearly don't: > > Klimate Katastrophe Kook K'lame #4: 97% of climate experts agree > humans are causing global warming > > SPNAK! #4 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > The "97% of climate scientists agree" is an outright lie: > Message-ID: <c407c7d08fb6911ec5f4f90971e41c78@dizum.com> > ========================================================= > The LibTard environmental whackadoodles keep bleating about "97% > of climate scientists agree that global warming is human > caused!". > > Where did this 97% figure come from? > > When you explore its lineage, it turns out to be about as > convincing as a Chicago election. The most prominent form of it > comes from a professor in Australia named John Cook at the > University of Queensland. > > What Cook's study purported to do was to review the abstracts > (not the entire papers, just the abstracts) of 11,000 climate > science articles. > > But when you read the first paragraph of Cook's abstract for his > study, it says, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no > position on anthropogenic global warming, 32.6% endorsed > anthropogenic global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were > uncertain." > > That means only 1/3 of those papers had an opinion on > human-caused global warming. The next sentence in Cook's abstract > for his study says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on > human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorsed the consensus > position that humans are causing the warming." > > 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482 > (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that > global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all > "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research > assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed) > papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC > and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on. > > But then, LibTard environmental whackadoodles are gullible and > stupid... they can't pull their heads out of liberalism's ass > long enough to do their own research, and even if they could, > that hard math eludes them. > ========================================================= > > Doh! Stoooopid libtard *still* can't figure out that hard math. LOL > "stooopid libtard" can prove that james cook would tell you to take your global cooling myth and stuff it: http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/ "With an undergraduate education in physics from the University of Queensland and a post-graduate honors year studying solar physics, Cook says his interest in climate science was sparked when he was given a copy of a speech by Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, most known to climate professionals for having attached the “greatest hoax known to man” tag to anthropogenic climate change." looks like you won't be able to use your "james cook" mythology anymore to try to back your k'lames that are unfounded and unpopular with climate scientists. D'OH!!! from james cook's own website (LOL!): https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_James_Inhofe.htm Climate Myth: "this 97% [of climate scientists accepting human-caused global warming], that doesn't mean anything. I named literally thousands of scientists on the floor...and these were top people." 14 March 2012 (Source) What the Science Says: 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. DOUBLE D'OH!!! now, how's about you and your dreamt-up k0okyKonservative wignut klimate konspiracy theories frig right off? -- http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg http://cafepress.com/kooktown http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :) if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try: http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 04:42 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) |
| Message-ID | <b7a9f3535d1c30e784011c6fd34d908b@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #274169 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x33aoip9tm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:31:37 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler > Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >> >> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of >> 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as >> root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x31r7kn2tm21m2@benson.localhost> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:39:11 -0400, Rocky (aka >>> Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC) >>> <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> ROT<SMACKAKOOK!> >>> why do i also have the feeling that you are one of these people who >>> believe that the "government can't do anything right", except when some >>> hyper-complex conspiracy is involved. >>> >>> that would be as k0oky as denying what a majority of climate scientists >>> have to say about climate change. >> Or as kooky as believing a majority of scientists agree about >> something which they clearly don't: >> >> Klimate Katastrophe Kook K'lame #4: 97% of climate experts agree >> humans are causing global warming >> >> SPNAK! #4 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> The "97% of climate scientists agree" is an outright lie: >> Message-ID: <c407c7d08fb6911ec5f4f90971e41c78@dizum.com> >> ========================================================= >> The LibTard environmental whackadoodles keep bleating about "97% >> of climate scientists agree that global warming is human >> caused!". >> >> Where did this 97% figure come from? >> >> When you explore its lineage, it turns out to be about as >> convincing as a Chicago election. The most prominent form of it >> comes from a professor in Australia named John Cook at the >> University of Queensland. >> >> What Cook's study purported to do was to review the abstracts >> (not the entire papers, just the abstracts) of 11,000 climate >> science articles. >> >> But when you read the first paragraph of Cook's abstract for his >> study, it says, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no >> position on anthropogenic global warming, 32.6% endorsed >> anthropogenic global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were >> uncertain." >> >> That means only 1/3 of those papers had an opinion on >> human-caused global warming. The next sentence in Cook's abstract >> for his study says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on >> human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorsed the consensus >> position that humans are causing the warming." >> >> 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482 >> (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that >> global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all >> "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research >> assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed) >> papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC >> and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on. >> >> But then, LibTard environmental whackadoodles are gullible and >> stupid... they can't pull their heads out of liberalism's ass >> long enough to do their own research, and even if they could, >> that hard math eludes them. >> ========================================================= >> >> Doh! Stoooopid libtard *still* can't figure out that hard math. LOL > "stooopid libtard" can prove that james cook would tell you to take your > global cooling myth and stuff it: You stayed up all night raping Google again, didn't you, DildoRider? You poor pathetic bastard. Now you're going to get bootfucked so hard you won't ever be the same again. LOL > http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/ > > "With an undergraduate education in physics from the University of > Queensland and a post-graduate honors year studying solar physics, Cook > says his interest in climate science was sparked when he was given a copy > of a speech by Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, most known to > climate professionals for having attached the “greatest hoax known to man” > tag to anthropogenic climate change." What's any of the above got to do with the falsified "97%" k'lame you libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kooks are making, DildoRider? Except that John Cook himself admits he's not a climate scientist. And the fact that his "study" is utter and complete fraudulent and fictional bullshit. LOL <http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html> > looks like you won't be able to use your "james You mean John? LOL Put down the crack pipe, Crackie McCrackHead. LOL > cook" mythology anymore to try to back your k'lames that are > unfounded and unpopular with climate scientists. D'OH!!! Put down the crack pipe, Crackie McCrackHead. LOL > from james You mean John? LOL Put down the crack pipe, Crackie McCrackHead. LOL > cook's own website (LOL!): > > https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_James_Inhofe.htm > > Climate Myth: > "this 97% [of climate scientists accepting human-caused global warming], > that doesn't mean anything. I named literally thousands of scientists on > the floor...and these were top people." > 14 March 2012 (Source) > > What the Science Says: > 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. The actual numbers show the libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kook "consensus" is collapsing. LOL <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY-LVhNM5fA> 33 of the 50 most-cited papers on climate change were omitted in the Cook et. al. "study". 8,000 papers that couldn't be fraudulently misclassified were ignored, and many other papers by the following scientists wrongly categorized by Cook et. al. (2013) in a classic case of cherry-picking. Here are some of the scientist's responses: Prof. Craig D. Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper." Dr. Nicola Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory..." Professor Nir J. Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation." Dr. Alain Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper... as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize", nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I believe that there is sufficient evidence concerning misclassification that Cook et al's paper should be withdrawn by the authors and the data reanalyzed, preferably by less-biased reviewers." Professor Nils-Axel Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. My papers are strongly against AGW." Professor Willie Soon: "This rating of 'no position on AGW by CO2' is nowhere accurate nor correct." Professor Richard Tol: "7 out of 10 assessed papers were wrongly classified, another 112 were completely omitted! Of these, 111 (99%) were neutral. I think (their) data are a load of crap. I think (their) sampling strategy is a load of nonsense." DOUBLE D'OH!!! > DOUBLE D'OH!!! Double D'OH!!! on the fact that his own report says: ================================================== What Cook's study purported to do was to review the abstracts (not the entire papers, just the abstracts) of 11,000 climate science articles. But when you read the first paragraph of Cook's abstract for his study, it says, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming, 32.6% endorsed anthropogenic global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were uncertain." That means only 1/3 of those papers had an opinion on human-caused global warming. The next sentence in Cook's abstract for his study says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing the warming." Of course, Cook exposes his bias in the sentence immediately above by k'laming there *is* a consensus, despite his own numbers proving there is not... he then went on to misclassify papers and omit those he couldn't misclassify in order to manufacture his k'lamed "consent". 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482 (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed) papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on. ================================================== Still having trouble grasping that basic math, DildoRider? Perhaps the libtard Cook is having trouble understanding the basic math, as well. Or perhaps he's a lying libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kook like you. LOL > now, how's about you and your dreamt-up k0okyKonservative wignut klimate > konspiracy theories frig right off? POINT 1: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Oh, what will you do when your beloved skepticalscience.com agrees with me, DildoRider? LOL <https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm> ================================================== 97% of climate papers stating a position on human-caused global warming agree global warming is happening... and we are the cause." "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers (out of 12,000 abstracts) expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming." ================================================== 4000 / 12000 = 33.3% of all papers stated a position. See the distinction there, DildoRider? 97% of *papers* *stating* *a* *position*, NOT 97% of climate scientists... your fallacy of equivocation is cute but utter bullshit. From Cook's own study above, only 32.6% of all papers stated a position.... and that was *with* Cook et. al. misclassifying a bunch of them, and omitting that which he knew he couldn't get away with misclassifying. Which corroborates my math above: 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482 (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed) papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on. And both the Cook study *and* the SkepticalScience.com follow-up collaboration with John Cook were debunked thoroughly: <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#page-1> Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change "In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic." D'OH! Did you get that, DildoRider? Cook et. al. lied, cherry-picked and outright falsified their data, same as all the other Klimate Katastrophe Kooks did when trying to sell their alarmist bullshit as steak. And they all got caught... ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0, remember? And now we have CartoonyGate by the failed cartoonist John Cook. LOL Lies, damned lies and statistics... and the libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kooks use all three. Too bad they're all too fucking stupid to get away with it. LOL SPNAK! on the math-challenged little emo scarecrow freak. LOL +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ *************************************************** *************************************************** Are ya *feeling* the bootfuck yet, DildoRider? LOL *************************************************** *************************************************** POINT 2 - Another "97%" myth: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The 97% number was created by meticulously selecting certain surveys using murky terminology to formulate a specific narrative. For example, one of the main sources of the 97% myth is a 2009 article by a student/teacher combo at the University of Illinois by the name of Doran and Zimmerman. The two of them conducted a two question online poll which concluded that 9 out of 10 scientists agreed temperatures were rising and mankind was the driving force. The survey was very heavy on temperature changes but very light on how humans played a role which essentially only confirmed that many scientists believe the climate is changing, which isn’t even remotely unusual. Another problem with this survey was that the “scientists” who were surveyed were scientists in the same way Bill Nye the Science guy is a scientist (he’s not, his highest level of education is a bachelor’s degree in engineering). Strangely, only 79 of the 3100 responses to this poll were from people who considered themselves experts in climate science. This survey was clearly not the landslide statement that climate change believers made it out to be. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eost.v90.3/issuetoc +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ *********************************************************** *********************************************************** I say, are ya *_feeling_* the bootfuck yet, DildoRider? LOL *********************************************************** *********************************************************** POINT 3 - Another "97%" myth: Are you getting the feeling the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks had a meeting and decided upon the 97% number as high enough to convince gullible libtards that there was a consensus? LOL +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The 97 Percent Myth June 3, 2014 Global warming advocates routinely toss out the statistic that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made. Where did that figure come from? Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, and Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, explain the history behind the misleading number. In short, there is no basis for the claim that 97 percent of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. In 2004, Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard science historian, examined 928 abstracts of scientific journal articles, finding that three-quarters of them believed that humans were responsible for most of the observed warming of the last half-century. However, Oreskes did not analyze articles by prominent scientists -- such as Richard Lindzen and John Christy -- who question the "consensus" view. Additionally, a recent study in Nature magazine confirms that academic abstracts often contain claims that are not proven in the studies themselves. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bwahahaha! A science *historian*?! No formal climate science education there. Not a bit... and she's amply demonstrated herself to be one of the alarmism bleating Klimate Katastrophe Kooks. LOL ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** I say, I say, are ya *_feeling_* the bootfuck YET, DildoRider? LOL ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** POINT 4 - Another "97%" myth: Are you getting the *definite* feeling the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks had a meeting and decided upon the 97% number as high enough to convince gullible libtards that there was a consensus, then kept bleating their wholly manufactured lie in hopes it'd finally be believed? LOL +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A 2009 article by University of Illinois student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran also made the 97 percent claim. The authors made this conclusion after conducting a two-question online survey of 3,146 scientists, only 79 of which were experts in climate science and had published half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. It did not include the scientists most likely to understand the natural causes of climate change: solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers. Moreover, the survey did not specify whether the human impact on global warming was large enough to constitute a problem. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On the other hand, write Bast and Spencer, the Petition Project -- a group of physicists and physical chemists in California -- has collected 31,487 signatures from American scientists agreeing that there is "no convincing scientific evidence that human release of...carbon dioxide...or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Source: Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, "The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'" Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2014. So I'll see your measly 4,000 Klimate Katastrophe Kook "zOMG! Glorbul Woarmings! DUUURRRHHHH!" papers, and raise you more than THIRTY ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN scientists (and that's just in the US) who say "bullshit". http://www.petitionproject.org/ In fact, I'll throw into the pot NASA, UAH, UK Met and RSS data proving the planet's been *cooling* for the whole 18 years you libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kooks have been screaming "zOMG! Gleurbil Woaermings! DUUURRRRHHH!". LOL =============================================================== <http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html> Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data. Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998. *Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~18 years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~18 years: <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF> Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com> Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine archived it): <http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html> Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling* temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose. =============================================================== And I'll even toss in the proof that the oceans aren't absorbing any heat: ================================================= <http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/> <http://iceagenow.info/2014/10/nasa-stumped-deep-oceans-warmed-2005/> "When scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013, they found that "the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably", the space agency announced in a press release on Monday. ================================================= And the fact that TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) has been falling, which is the main causal factor for the planet cooling, lo these past 18 years: ================================================= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance Differences between ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are evident, but the most significant is the solar minimum-to-minimum trends during solar cycles 21-23. ACRIM established an increase of +0.037%/decade from 1980 to 2000 and a decrease thereafter. The implications of increasing TSI during the global warming of the last two decades of the 20th century are that solar forcing may be a significantly larger factor in climate change than represented in the CMIP5 general circulation climate models.[22] ================================================= See the above, Ko0K? That means the total W/M^2 has been falling for the past decade and a half. And that your Klimate Katastrophe Kooks intentionally ignored TSI so they could instead place blame at the feet of CO2 and anthropogenicity to push their whackadoodle libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kook agenda. IOW, they fucking lied, and you're just stupid enough that you bought the lie. And now you're making a fool of yourself in defending your delusion. ********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* That's called "You've been bootfucked to hell and back, you gibbering retard". Now go clean yourself up, you pathetic putz. You're a fucking embarrassment. ********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* <snicker> -- Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey) 5907 Stanton Ave. Pittsburgh, PA DildoRider admits he's stoooopid: MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com> ================================================= >> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's >> damaged your brain, DildoRider. > then it appears that you like shooting fish in > barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are. Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell. <snicker> ================================================= DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com> ================================================= > so what you're saying is that your targets for attack > have to be really stupid or else you can't manage? =================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 04:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) |
| Message-ID | <F1A45370.D4EC4EB2@Melissococcus.Polycephalus.Haemolamae> |
| In reply to | #274225 |
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, damn thee, odious caterpillar, ye apple-polished: > "TIME" *TO* "SPIN" *THE* "KOOKS" *UP* "AGAIN". *MELT*, "KOOKS", > *MELT*. "<SNICKER>" > > "ROBERT" *M*. "WOLFE" *THE* "PITTSBURGH" *PIED* "PIPER" *OF* "PENIS" > *(AKA* "DILDORIDER)" *OF* "5907" *STANTON* "AVE.", *PITTSBURGH*, > "PA" *(AKA* "TEH" *MOP* "JOCKEY)", *SOCKED* "UP" *AS* > "ROOT@127.0.0.1", *IN* "<NEWS:OP.X33AOIP9TM21M2@BENSON.LOCALHOST>" > *DID* "THUSLY" *JUMP* "HEAD" *FIRST* "INTO" *THE* "WOOD" *CHIPPER* > "AGAIN": > >> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:31:37 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler >> Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > >>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >>> >>> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of >>> 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as >>> root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x31r7kn2tm21m2@benson.localhost> did >>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:39:11 -0400, Rocky (aka >>>> Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC) >>>> <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> ROT<SMACKAKOOK!> > >>>> why do i also have the feeling that you are one of these people who >>>> believe that the "government can't do anything right", except when some >>>> hyper-complex conspiracy is involved. >>>> >>>> that would be as k0oky as denying what a majority of climate scientists >>>> have to say about climate change. > >>> Or as kooky as believing a majority of scientists agree about >>> something which they clearly don't: >>> >>> Klimate Katastrophe Kook K'lame #4: 97% of climate experts agree >>> humans are causing global warming >>> >>> SPNAK! #4 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> The "97% of climate scientists agree" is an outright lie: >>> Message-ID: <c407c7d08fb6911ec5f4f90971e41c78@dizum.com> >>> ========================================================= >>> The LibTard environmental whackadoodles keep bleating about "97% >>> of climate scientists agree that global warming is human >>> caused!". >>> >>> Where did this 97% figure come from? >>> >>> When you explore its lineage, it turns out to be about as >>> convincing as a Chicago election. The most prominent form of it >>> comes from a professor in Australia named John Cook at the >>> University of Queensland. >>> >>> What Cook's study purported to do was to review the abstracts >>> (not the entire papers, just the abstracts) of 11,000 climate >>> science articles. >>> >>> But when you read the first paragraph of Cook's abstract for his >>> study, it says, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no >>> position on anthropogenic global warming, 32.6% endorsed >>> anthropogenic global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were >>> uncertain." >>> >>> That means only 1/3 of those papers had an opinion on >>> human-caused global warming. The next sentence in Cook's abstract >>> for his study says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on >>> human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorsed the consensus >>> position that humans are causing the warming." >>> >>> 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482 >>> (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that >>> global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all >>> "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research >>> assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed) >>> papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC >>> and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on. >>> >>> But then, LibTard environmental whackadoodles are gullible and >>> stupid... they can't pull their heads out of liberalism's ass >>> long enough to do their own research, and even if they could, >>> that hard math eludes them. >>> ========================================================= >>> >>> Doh! Stoooopid libtard *still* can't figure out that hard math. LOL > >> "stooopid libtard" can prove that james cook would tell you to take your >> global cooling myth and stuff it: > > "YOU" *STAYED* "UP" *ALL* "NIGHT" *RAPING* "GOOGLE" *AGAIN*, > "DIDN'T" *YOU*, "DILDORIDER"? *YOU* "POOR" *PATHETIC* "BASTARD". > *NOW* "YOU'RE" *GOING* "TO" *GET* "BOOTFUCKED" *SO* "HARD" *YOU* > "WON'T" *EVER* "BE" *THE* "SAME" *AGAIN*. "LOL" > >> http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/ >> >> "With an undergraduate education in physics from the University of >> Queensland and a post-graduate honors year studying solar physics, Cook >> says his interest in climate science was sparked when he was given a copy >> of a speech by Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, most known to >> climate professionals for having attached the “greatest hoax known to man” >> tag to anthropogenic climate change." > > "WHAT'S" *ANY* "OF" *THE* "ABOVE" *GOT* "TO" *DO* "WITH" *THE* > "FALSIFIED" *"97%"* "K'LAME" *YOU* "LIBTARD" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" > *KOOKS* "ARE" *MAKING*, "DILDORIDER"? *EXCEPT* "THAT" *JOHN* "COOK" > *HIMSELF* "ADMITS" *HE'S* "NOT" *A* "CLIMATE" *SCIENTIST*. "AND" > *THE* "FACT" *THAT* "HIS" *"STUDY"* "IS" *UTTER* "AND" *COMPLETE* > "FRAUDULENT" *AND* "FICTIONAL" *BULLSHIT*. "LOL" > > "<HTTP://WWW.POPULARTECHNOLOGY.NET/2012/03/TRUTH-ABOUT-SKEPTICAL-SCIENCE.HTML>" > >> looks like you won't be able to use your "james > > "YOU" *MEAN* "JOHN"? *LOL* > > "PUT" *DOWN* "THE" *CRACK* "PIPE", *CRACKIE* "MCCRACKHEAD". *LOL* > >> cook" mythology anymore to try to back your k'lames that are >> unfounded and unpopular with climate scientists. D'OH!!! > > "PUT" *DOWN* "THE" *CRACK* "PIPE", *CRACKIE* "MCCRACKHEAD". *LOL* > >> from james > > "YOU" *MEAN* "JOHN"? *LOL* > > "PUT" *DOWN* "THE" *CRACK* "PIPE", *CRACKIE* "MCCRACKHEAD". *LOL* > >> cook's own website (LOL!): >> >> https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_James_Inhofe.htm >> >> Climate Myth: >> "this 97% [of climate scientists accepting human-caused global warming], >> that doesn't mean anything. I named literally thousands of scientists on >> the floor...and these were top people." >> 14 March 2012 (Source) >> >> What the Science Says: >> 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. > > "THE" *ACTUAL* "NUMBERS" *SHOW* "THE" *LIBTARD* "KLIMATE" > *KATASTROPHE* "KOOK" *"CONSENSUS"* "IS" *COLLAPSING*. "LOL" > > "<HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=OY-LVHNM5FA>" *33* "OF" *THE* "50" > *MOST-CITED* "PAPERS" *ON* "CLIMATE" *CHANGE* "WERE" *OMITTED* "IN" > *THE* "COOK" *ET*. "AL". *"STUDY"*. "8,000" *PAPERS* "THAT" > *COULDN'T* "BE" *FRAUDULENTLY* "MISCLASSIFIED" *WERE* "IGNORED", > *AND* "MANY" *OTHER* "PAPERS" *BY* "THE" *FOLLOWING* "SCIENTISTS" > *WRONGLY* "CATEGORIZED" *BY* "COOK" *ET*. "AL". *(2013)* "IN" *A* > "CLASSIC" *CASE* "OF" *CHERRY-PICKING*. > > "HERE" *ARE* "SOME" *OF* "THE" *SCIENTIST'S* "RESPONSES": > > "PROF". *CRAIG* "D". *IDSO*: ""THAT" *IS* "NOT" *AN* "ACCURATE" > *REPRESENTATION* "OF" *MY* "PAPER."" > > "DR". *NICOLA* "SCAFETTA": *"COOK* "ET" *AL*. "(2013)" *IS* "BASED" > *ON* "A" *STRAWMAN* "ARGUMENT" *BECAUSE* "IT" *DOES* "NOT" > *CORRECTLY* "DEFINE" *THE* "IPCC" *AGW* "THEORY..."" > > "PROFESSOR" *NIR* "J". *SHAVIV*: ""NOPE". *IT* "IS" *NOT* "AN" > *ACCURATE* "REPRESENTATION."" > > "DR". *ALAIN* "CARLIN": *"NO*, "IF" *COOK* "ET" *AL'S* "PAPER" > *CLASSIFIES* "MY" *PAPER*. "AS" *"EXPLICITLY* "ENDORSES" *AGW* "BUT" > *DOES* "NOT" *QUANTIFY* "OR" *MINIMIZE"*, "NOTHING" *COULD* "BE" > *FURTHER* "FROM" *EITHER* "MY" *INTENT* "OR" *THE* "CONTENTS" *OF* > "MY" *PAPER*. "I" *BELIEVE* "THAT" *THERE* "IS" *SUFFICIENT* > "EVIDENCE" *CONCERNING* "MISCLASSIFICATION" *THAT* "COOK" *ET* > "AL'S" *PAPER* "SHOULD" *BE* "WITHDRAWN" *BY* "THE" *AUTHORS* "AND" > *THE* "DATA" *REANALYZED*, "PREFERABLY" *BY* "LESS-BIASED" > *REVIEWERS."* > > "PROFESSOR" *NILS-AXEL* "MORNER": *"CERTAINLY* "NOT" *CORRECT* "AND" > *CERTAINLY* "MISLEADING". *MY* "PAPERS" *ARE* "STRONGLY" *AGAINST* > "AGW."" > > "PROFESSOR" *WILLIE* "SOON": *"THIS* "RATING" *OF* "'NO" *POSITION* > "ON" *AGW* "BY" *CO2'* "IS" *NOWHERE* "ACCURATE" *NOR* "CORRECT."" > > "PROFESSOR" *RICHARD* "TOL": *"7* "OUT" *OF* "10" *ASSESSED* > "PAPERS" *WERE* "WRONGLY" *CLASSIFIED*, "ANOTHER" *112* "WERE" > *COMPLETELY* "OMITTED"! *OF* "THESE", *111* "(99%)" *WERE* > "NEUTRAL". *I* "THINK" *(THEIR)* "DATA" *ARE* "A" *LOAD* "OF" > *CRAP*. "I" *THINK* "(THEIR)" *SAMPLING* "STRATEGY" *IS* "A" *LOAD* > "OF" *NONSENSE."* > > "DOUBLE" *D'OH*! > >> DOUBLE D'OH!!! > > "DOUBLE" *D'OH*! "ON" *THE* "FACT" *THAT* "HIS" *OWN* "REPORT" > *SAYS*: "==================================================" *WHAT* > "COOK'S" *STUDY* "PURPORTED" *TO* "DO" *WAS* "TO" *REVIEW* "THE" > *ABSTRACTS* "(NOT" *THE* "ENTIRE" *PAPERS*, "JUST" *THE* > "ABSTRACTS)" *OF* "11,000" *CLIMATE* "SCIENCE" *ARTICLES*. > > "BUT" *WHEN* "YOU" *READ* "THE" *FIRST* "PARAGRAPH" *OF* "COOK'S" > *ABSTRACT* "FOR" *HIS* "STUDY", *IT* "SAYS", *"WE* "FIND" *THAT* > "66.4%" *OF* "ABSTRACTS" *EXPRESSED* "NO" *POSITION* "ON" > *ANTHROPOGENIC* "GLOBAL" *WARMING*, "32.6%" *ENDORSED* > "ANTHROPOGENIC" *GLOBAL* "WARMING", *0.7%* "REJECTED" *IT*, "AND" > *0.3%* "WERE" *UNCERTAIN."* > > "THAT" *MEANS* "ONLY" *1/3* "OF" *THOSE* "PAPERS" *HAD* "AN" > *OPINION* "ON" *HUMAN-CAUSED* "GLOBAL" *WARMING*. "THE" *NEXT* > "SENTENCE" *IN* "COOK'S" *ABSTRACT* "FOR" *HIS* "STUDY" *SAYS*, > ""AMONG" *ABSTRACTS* "EXPRESSING" *A* "POSITION" *ON* "HUMAN-CAUSED" > *GLOBAL* "WARMING", *97.1%* "ENDORSED" *THE* "CONSENSUS" *POSITION* > "THAT" *HUMANS* "ARE" *CAUSING* "THE" *WARMING."* > > "OF" *COURSE*, "COOK" *EXPOSES* "HIS" *BIAS* "IN" *THE* "SENTENCE" > *IMMEDIATELY* "ABOVE" *BY* "K'LAMING" *THERE* "*IS*" *A* > "CONSENSUS", *DESPITE* "HIS" *OWN* "NUMBERS" *PROVING* "THERE" *IS* > "NOT". *HE* "THEN" *WENT* "ON" *TO* "MISCLASSIFY" *PAPERS* "AND" > *OMIT* "THOSE" *HE* "COULDN'T" *MISCLASSIFY* "IN" *ORDER* "TO" > *MANUFACTURE* "HIS" *K'LAMED* ""CONSENT"". > > "11000" *** ".326" *=* "3586" *** ".971" *=* "3482" *(3482* "/" > *11000)* "*" *100* "=" *31.65%* "OF" *CLIMATE* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREE* > "THAT" *GLOBAL* "WARMING" *IS* "HUMAN-CAUSED". *AND* "THOSE" > *31.65%* "AREN'T" *EVEN* "ALL" *"CLIMATE* "SCIENTISTS"". *A* "GOOD" > *MAJORITY* "OF" *THEM* "ARE" *RESEARCH* "ASSISTANTS" *AND* "COLLEGE" > *STUDENTS* "WHO" *WRITE* "THE" *(NON-PEER* "REVIEWED)" *PAPERS* > "THAT" *THE* "LEAD" *RESEARCHERS* "(MAINLY" *ASSOCIATED* "WITH" > *THE* "IPCC" *AND* "OTHER" *POLITICIZED* ""SCIENTIFIC"" *ENTITIES)* > "PUT" *THEIR* "NAMES" *ON*. > "==================================================" > > "STILL" *HAVING* "TROUBLE" *GRASPING* "THAT" *BASIC* "MATH", > *DILDORIDER*? "PERHAPS" *THE* "LIBTARD" *COOK* "IS" *HAVING* > "TROUBLE" *UNDERSTANDING* "THE" *BASIC* "MATH", *AS* "WELL". *OR* > "PERHAPS" *HE'S* "A" *LYING* "LIBTARD" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" > *KOOK* "LIKE" *YOU*. "LOL" > >> now, how's about you and your dreamt-up k0okyKonservative wignut klimate >> konspiracy theories frig right off? > > "POINT" *1*: > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* "OH", > *WHAT* "WILL" *YOU* "DO" *WHEN* "YOUR" *BELOVED* > "SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM" *AGREES* "WITH" *ME*, "DILDORIDER"? *LOL* > > "<HTTPS://WWW.SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM/GLOBAL-WARMING-SCIENTIFIC-CONSENSUS-ADVANCED.HTM>" > *==================================================* "97%" *OF* > "CLIMATE" *PAPERS* "STATING" *A* "POSITION" *ON* "HUMAN-CAUSED" > *GLOBAL* "WARMING" *AGREE* "GLOBAL" *WARMING* "IS" *HAPPENING*. > "AND" *WE* "ARE" *THE* "CAUSE."" > > ""BASED" *ON* "OUR" *ABSTRACT* "RATINGS", *WE* "FOUND" *THAT* "JUST" > *OVER* "4,000" *PAPERS* "(OUT" *OF* "12,000" *ABSTRACTS)* > "EXPRESSED" *A* "POSITION" *ON* "THE" *CAUSE* "OF" *GLOBAL* > "WARMING", *97.1%* "OF" *WHICH* "ENDORSED" *HUMAN-CAUSED* "GLOBAL" > *WARMING."* "==================================================" > > "4000" */* "12000" *=* "33.3%" *OF* "ALL" *PAPERS* "STATED" *A* > "POSITION". > > "SEE" *THE* "DISTINCTION" *THERE*, "DILDORIDER"? *97%* "OF" > **PAPERS** "*STATING*" **A** "*POSITION*", *NOT* "97%" *OF* > "CLIMATE" *SCIENTISTS*. "YOUR" *FALLACY* "OF" *EQUIVOCATION* "IS" > *CUTE* "BUT" *UTTER* "BULLSHIT". *FROM* "COOK'S" *OWN* "STUDY" > *ABOVE*, "ONLY" *32.6%* "OF" *ALL* "PAPERS" *STATED* "A" *POSITION*. > "AND" *THAT* "WAS" **WITH** "COOK" *ET*. "AL". *MISCLASSIFYING* "A" > *BUNCH* "OF" *THEM*, "AND" *OMITTING* "THAT" *WHICH* "HE" *KNEW* > "HE" *COULDN'T* "GET" *AWAY* "WITH" *MISCLASSIFYING*. "WHICH" > *CORROBORATES* "MY" *MATH* "ABOVE": > > "11000" *** ".326" *=* "3586" *** ".971" *=* "3482" *(3482* "/" > *11000)* "*" *100* "=" *31.65%* "OF" *CLIMATE* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREE* > "THAT" *GLOBAL* "WARMING" *IS* "HUMAN-CAUSED". *AND* "THOSE" > *31.65%* "AREN'T" *EVEN* "ALL" *"CLIMATE* "SCIENTISTS"". *A* "GOOD" > *MAJORITY* "OF" *THEM* "ARE" *RESEARCH* "ASSISTANTS" *AND* "COLLEGE" > *STUDENTS* "WHO" *WRITE* "THE" *(NON-PEER* "REVIEWED)" *PAPERS* > "THAT" *THE* "LEAD" *RESEARCHERS* "(MAINLY" *ASSOCIATED* "WITH" > *THE* "IPCC" *AND* "OTHER" *POLITICIZED* ""SCIENTIFIC"" *ENTITIES)* > "PUT" *THEIR* "NAMES" *ON*. > > "AND" *BOTH* "THE" *COOK* "STUDY" **AND** "THE" > *SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM* "FOLLOW-UP" *COLLABORATION* "WITH" *JOHN* > "COOK" *WERE* "DEBUNKED" *THOROUGHLY*: > "<HTTP://LINK.SPRINGER.COM/ARTICLE/10.1007/S11191-013-9647-9#PAGE-1>" > *CLIMATE* "CONSENSUS" *AND* "'MISINFORMATION'": *A* "REJOINDER" *TO* > "AGNOTOLOGY", *SCIENTIFIC* "CONSENSUS", *AND* "THE" *TEACHING* "AND" > *LEARNING* "OF" *CLIMATE* "CHANGE" > > ""IN" *THEIR* "REPLY", *BEDFORD* "AND" *COOK* "(SCI" *EDUC* > "22:2019–2030", *2013)*, "SEEKING" *TO* "APPLY" *AGNOTOLOGY* "TO" > *CLIMATE* "SCIENCE", *ASSERTED* "THAT" *FOSSIL-FUEL* "INTERESTS" > *HAD* "PROMOTED" *DOUBT* "ABOUT" *A* "CLIMATE" *CONSENSUS*. "THEIR" > *DEFINITION* "OF" *CLIMATE* "‘MISINFORMATION’" *WAS* "CONTINGENT" > *UPON* "THE" *POST-MODERNIST* "ASSUMPTIONS" *THAT* "SCIENTIFIC" > *TRUTH* "IS" *DISCERNIBLE* "BY" *MEASURING* "A" *CONSENSUS* "AMONG" > *EXPERTS*, "AND" *THAT* "A" *NEAR* "UNANIMOUS" *CONSENSUS* "EXISTS". > *HOWEVER*, "INSPECTION" *OF* "A" *CLAIM* "BY" *COOK* "ET" *AL*. > "(ENVIRON" *RES* "LETT" *8:024024*, "2013)" *OF* "97.1" *%* > "CONSENSUS", *HEAVILY* "RELIED" *UPON* "BY" *BEDFORD* "AND" *COOK*, > "SHOWS" *JUST* "0.3" *%* "ENDORSEMENT" *OF* "THE" *STANDARD* > "DEFINITION" *OF* "CONSENSUS": *THAT* "MOST" *WARMING* "SINCE" > *1950* "IS" *ANTHROPOGENIC."* > > "D'OH"! *DID* "YOU" *GET* "THAT", *DILDORIDER*? "COOK" *ET*. "AL". > *LIED*, "CHERRY-PICKED" *AND* "OUTRIGHT" *FALSIFIED* "THEIR" *DATA*, > "SAME" *AS* "ALL" *THE* "OTHER" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" *KOOKS* > "DID" *WHEN* "TRYING" *TO* "SELL" *THEIR* "ALARMIST" *BULLSHIT* "AS" > *STEAK*. "AND" *THEY* "ALL" *GOT* "CAUGHT". *CLIMATEGATE* "1.0" > *AND* "CLIMATEGATE" *2.0*, "REMEMBER"? *AND* "NOW" *WE* "HAVE" > *CARTOONYGATE* "BY" *THE* "FAILED" *CARTOONIST* "JOHN" *COOK*. "LOL" > > "LIES", *DAMNED* "LIES" *AND* "STATISTICS". *AND* "THE" *LIBTARD* > "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOKS" *USE* "ALL" *THREE*. "TOO" *BAD* > "THEY'RE" *ALL* "TOO" *FUCKING* "STUPID" *TO* "GET" *AWAY* "WITH" > *IT*. "LOL" > > "SPNAK"! *ON* "THE" *MATH-CHALLENGED* "LITTLE" *EMO* "SCARECROW" > *FREAK*. "LOL" > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" > > "***************************************************" > ***************************************************** "ARE" *YA* > "*FEELING*" *THE* "BOOTFUCK" *YET*, "DILDORIDER"? *LOL* > "***************************************************" > ***************************************************** > > "POINT" *2* "-" *ANOTHER* ""97%"" *MYTH*: > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* "THE" > *97%* "NUMBER" *WAS* "CREATED" *BY* "METICULOUSLY" *SELECTING* > "CERTAIN" *SURVEYS* "USING" *MURKY* "TERMINOLOGY" *TO* "FORMULATE" > *A* "SPECIFIC" *NARRATIVE*. > > "FOR" *EXAMPLE*, "ONE" *OF* "THE" *MAIN* "SOURCES" *OF* "THE" *97%* > "MYTH" *IS* "A" *2009* "ARTICLE" *BY* "A" *STUDENT/TEACHER* "COMBO" > *AT* "THE" *UNIVERSITY* "OF" *ILLINOIS* "BY" *THE* "NAME" *OF* > "DORAN" *AND* "ZIMMERMAN". *THE* "TWO" *OF* "THEM" *CONDUCTED* "A" > *TWO* "QUESTION" *ONLINE* "POLL" *WHICH* "CONCLUDED" *THAT* "9" > *OUT* "OF" *10* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREED* "TEMPERATURES" *WERE* "RISING" > *AND* "MANKIND" *WAS* "THE" *DRIVING* "FORCE". *THE* "SURVEY" *WAS* > "VERY" *HEAVY* "ON" *TEMPERATURE* "CHANGES" *BUT* "VERY" *LIGHT* > "ON" *HOW* "HUMANS" *PLAYED* "A" *ROLE* "WHICH" *ESSENTIALLY* "ONLY" > *CONFIRMED* "THAT" *MANY* "SCIENTISTS" *BELIEVE* "THE" *CLIMATE* > "IS" *CHANGING*, "WHICH" *ISN’T* "EVEN" *REMOTELY* "UNUSUAL". > > "ANOTHER" *PROBLEM* "WITH" *THIS* "SURVEY" *WAS* "THAT" *THE* > "“SCIENTISTS”" *WHO* "WERE" *SURVEYED* "WERE" *SCIENTISTS* "IN" > *THE* "SAME" *WAY* "BILL" *NYE* "THE" *SCIENCE* "GUY" *IS* "A" > *SCIENTIST* "(HE’S" *NOT*, "HIS" *HIGHEST* "LEVEL" *OF* "EDUCATION" > *IS* "A" *BACHELOR’S* "DEGREE" *IN* "ENGINEERING)". *STRANGELY*, > "ONLY" *79* "OF" *THE* "3100" *RESPONSES* "TO" *THIS* "POLL" *WERE* > "FROM" *PEOPLE* "WHO" *CONSIDERED* "THEMSELVES" *EXPERTS* "IN" > *CLIMATE* "SCIENCE". *THIS* "SURVEY" *WAS* "CLEARLY" *NOT* "THE" > *LANDSLIDE* "STATEMENT" *THAT* "CLIMATE" *CHANGE* "BELIEVERS" *MADE* > "IT" *OUT* "TO" *BE*. > > "HTTP://ONLINELIBRARY.WILEY.COM/DOI/10.1002/EOST.V90.3/ISSUETOC" > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" > > "***********************************************************" > ************************************************************* "I" > *SAY*, "ARE" *YA* "*_FEELING_*" *THE* "BOOTFUCK" *YET*, > "DILDORIDER"? *LOL* > "***********************************************************" > ************************************************************* > > "POINT" *3* "-" *ANOTHER* ""97%"" *MYTH*: "ARE" *YOU* "GETTING" > *THE* "FEELING" *THE* "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOKS" *HAD* "A" > *MEETING* "AND" *DECIDED* "UPON" *THE* "97%" *NUMBER* "AS" *HIGH* > "ENOUGH" *TO* "CONVINCE" *GULLIBLE* "LIBTARDS" *THAT* "THERE" *WAS* > "A" *CONSENSUS*? "LOL" > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" *THE* "97" > *PERCENT* "MYTH" *JUNE* "3", *2014* > > "GLOBAL" *WARMING* "ADVOCATES" *ROUTINELY* "TOSS" *OUT* "THE" > *STATISTIC* "THAT" *97* "PERCENT" *OF* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREE* "THAT" > *CLIMATE* "CHANGE" *IS* "REAL" *AND* "MAN-MADE". *WHERE* "DID" > *THAT* "FIGURE" *COME* "FROM"? *JOSEPH* "BAST", *PRESIDENT* "OF" > *THE* "HEARTLAND" *INSTITUTE*, "AND" *ROY* "SPENCER", *PRINCIPAL* > "RESEARCH" *SCIENTIST* "FOR" *THE* "UNIVERSITY" *OF* "ALABAMA" *IN* > "HUNTSVILLE", *EXPLAIN* "THE" *HISTORY* "BEHIND" *THE* "MISLEADING" > *NUMBER*. > > "IN" *SHORT*, "THERE" *IS* "NO" *BASIS* "FOR" *THE* "CLAIM" *THAT* > "97" *PERCENT* "OF" *SCIENTISTS* "BELIEVE" *THAT* "MAN-MADE" > *CLIMATE* "CHANGE" *IS* "A" *DANGEROUS* "PROBLEM". > > "IN" *2004*, "NAOMI" *ORESKES*, "A" *HARVARD* "SCIENCE" *HISTORIAN*, > "EXAMINED" *928* "ABSTRACTS" *OF* "SCIENTIFIC" *JOURNAL* "ARTICLES", > *FINDING* "THAT" *THREE-QUARTERS* "OF" *THEM* "BELIEVED" *THAT* > "HUMANS" *WERE* "RESPONSIBLE" *FOR* "MOST" *OF* "THE" *OBSERVED* > "WARMING" *OF* "THE" *LAST* "HALF-CENTURY". > > "HOWEVER", *ORESKES* "DID" *NOT* "ANALYZE" *ARTICLES* "BY" > *PROMINENT* "SCIENTISTS" *--* "SUCH" *AS* "RICHARD" *LINDZEN* "AND" > *JOHN* "CHRISTY" *--* "WHO" *QUESTION* "THE" *"CONSENSUS"* "VIEW". > *ADDITIONALLY*, "A" *RECENT* "STUDY" *IN* "NATURE" *MAGAZINE* > "CONFIRMS" *THAT* "ACADEMIC" *ABSTRACTS* "OFTEN" *CONTAIN* "CLAIMS" > *THAT* "ARE" *NOT* "PROVEN" *IN* "THE" *STUDIES* "THEMSELVES". > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" > > "BWAHAHAHA"! *A* "SCIENCE" **HISTORIAN*?*! "NO" *FORMAL* "CLIMATE" > *SCIENCE* "EDUCATION" *THERE*. "NOT" *A* "BIT". *AND* "SHE'S" > *AMPLY* "DEMONSTRATED" *HERSELF* "TO" *BE* "ONE" *OF* "THE" > *ALARMISM* "BLEATING" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" *KOOKS*. "LOL" > > "******************************************************************" > ******************************************************************** > "I" *SAY*, "I" *SAY*, "ARE" *YA* "*_FEELING_*" *THE* "BOOTFUCK" > *YET*, "DILDORIDER"? *LOL* > "******************************************************************" > ******************************************************************** > > "POINT" *4* "-" *ANOTHER* ""97%"" *MYTH*: "ARE" *YOU* "GETTING" > *THE* "*DEFINITE*" *FEELING* "THE" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" *KOOKS* > "HAD" *A* "MEETING" *AND* "DECIDED" *UPON* "THE" *97%* "NUMBER" *AS* > "HIGH" *ENOUGH* "TO" *CONVINCE* "GULLIBLE" *LIBTARDS* "THAT" *THERE* > "WAS" *A* "CONSENSUS", *THEN* "KEPT" *BLEATING* "THEIR" *WHOLLY* > "MANUFACTURED" *LIE* "IN" *HOPES* "IT'D" *FINALLY* "BE" *BELIEVED*? > "LOL" *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" *A* "2009" > *ARTICLE* "BY" *UNIVERSITY* "OF" *ILLINOIS* "STUDENT" *MAGGIE* > "KENDALL" *ZIMMERMAN* "AND" *HER* "MASTER'S" *THESIS* "ADVISER" > *PETER* "DORAN" *ALSO* "MADE" *THE* "97" *PERCENT* "CLAIM". > > "THE" *AUTHORS* "MADE" *THIS* "CONCLUSION" *AFTER* "CONDUCTING" *A* > "TWO-QUESTION" *ONLINE* "SURVEY" *OF* "3,146" *SCIENTISTS*, "ONLY" > *79* "OF" *WHICH* "WERE" *EXPERTS* "IN" *CLIMATE* "SCIENCE" *AND* > "HAD" *PUBLISHED* "HALF" *OF* "THEIR" *RECENT* "PEER-REVIEWED" > *PAPERS* "ON" *CLIMATE* "CHANGE". *IT* "DID" *NOT* "INCLUDE" *THE* > "SCIENTISTS" *MOST* "LIKELY" *TO* "UNDERSTAND" *THE* "NATURAL" > *CAUSES* "OF" *CLIMATE* "CHANGE": *SOLAR* "SCIENTISTS", *SPACE* > "SCIENTISTS", *COSMOLOGISTS*, "PHYSICISTS", *METEOROLOGISTS* "OR" > *ASTRONOMERS*. "MOREOVER", *THE* "SURVEY" *DID* "NOT" *SPECIFY* > "WHETHER" *THE* "HUMAN" *IMPACT* "ON" *GLOBAL* "WARMING" *WAS* > "LARGE" *ENOUGH* "TO" *CONSTITUTE* "A" *PROBLEM*. > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > > "ON" *THE* "OTHER" *HAND*, "WRITE" *BAST* "AND" *SPENCER*, "THE" > *PETITION* "PROJECT" *--* "A" *GROUP* "OF" *PHYSICISTS* "AND" > *PHYSICAL* "CHEMISTS" *IN* "CALIFORNIA" *--* "HAS" *COLLECTED* > "31,487" *SIGNATURES* "FROM" *AMERICAN* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREEING* > "THAT" *THERE* "IS" *"NO* "CONVINCING" *SCIENTIFIC* "EVIDENCE" > *THAT* "HUMAN" *RELEASE* "OF...CARBON" *DIOXIDE...OR* "OTHER" > *GREENHOUSE* "GASES" *IS* "CAUSING" *OR* "WILL", *IN* "THE" > *FORESEEABLE* "FUTURE", *CAUSE* "CATASTROPHIC" *HEATING* "OF" *THE* > "EARTH'S" *ATMOSPHERE* "AND" *DISRUPTION* "OF" *THE* "EARTH'S" > *CLIMATE."* > > "SOURCE": *JOSEPH* "BAST" *AND* "ROY" *SPENCER*, ""THE" *MYTH* "OF" > *THE* "CLIMATE" *CHANGE* "'97%'"" *WALL* "STREET" *JOURNAL*, "MAY" > *26*, "2014". > > "SO" *I'LL* "SEE" *YOUR* "MEASLY" *4,000* "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* > "KOOK" *"ZOMG*! "GLORBUL" *WOARMINGS*! "DUUURRRHHHH!"" *PAPERS*, > "AND" *RAISE* "YOU" *MORE* "THAN" *THIRTY* "ONE" *THOUSAND* "FOUR" > *HUNDRED* "EIGHTY" *SEVEN* "SCIENTISTS" *(AND* "THAT'S" *JUST* "IN" > *THE* "US)" *WHO* "SAY" *"BULLSHIT"*. > > "HTTP://WWW.PETITIONPROJECT.ORG/" > > "IN" *FACT*, "I'LL" *THROW* "INTO" *THE* "POT" *NASA*, "UAH", *UK* > "MET" *AND* "RSS" *DATA* "PROVING" *THE* "PLANET'S" *BEEN* > "*COOLING*" *FOR* "THE" *WHOLE* "18" *YEARS* "YOU" *LIBTARD* > "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOKS" *HAVE* "BEEN" *SCREAMING* ""ZOMG"! > *GLEURBIL* "WOAERMINGS"! *DUUURRRRHHH!"*. "LOL" > > "===============================================================" > *<HTTP://WWW.REPORTINGCLIMATESCIENCE.COM/NEWS-STORIES/ARTICLE/GLOBAL-WARMING-PAUSE-HITS-18-YEARS-ON-RSS-DATA.HTML>* > "USING" *UK* "MET", *UAH* "AND" *RSS* "DATA". > > "PAGE" *11* "-" *GLOBAL* "TEMPERATURE" *RATE* "(C" *PER* "YEAR)": > *DROPPING* "SINCE" *~1998*. "*NEGATIVE*" *SINCE* "~2005". *THAT* > "MEANS" *TEMPS* "HAVE" *BEEN* "DROPPING" *FOR* "~18" *YEARS*, "AND" > *THE* "GULLIBLE" *LIBTARDS* "HAVE" *BEEN* "LIED" *TO* "FOR" *~18* > "YEARS": > *<HTTP://WWW.METOFFICE.GOV.UK/MEDIA/PDF/E/F/PAPER1_OBSERVING_CHANGES_IN_THE_CLIMATE_SYSTEM.PDF>* > > "MESSAGE-ID": *<B41F4A8054430AC46092E607919D7063@DIZUM.COM>* "EVEN" > *NASA* "ADMITTED" *THAT* "GLOBAL" *TEMPERATURES* "WERE" *FALLING* > "IN" *RECENT* "YEARS" *(BEFORE* "THEY" *PULLED* "THAT" *PAGE*. > "LUCKILY" *THE* "WAYBACK" *MACHINE* "ARCHIVED" *IT)*: > "<HTTP://WEB.ARCHIVE.ORG/WEB/20030816225534/HTTP://ICP.GISS.NASA.GOV/RESEARCH/METHANE/GREENHOUSE.HTML>" > *NOTE* "THE" *CENTER* "TRACE" *FOR* "MODERN" *TIMES* "IN" *THAT* > "GRAPHIC". **FALLING** "TEMPERATURE", *EVEN* "AS" *CO2* "AND" > *METHANE* "ROSE". > *===============================================================* > > "AND" *I'LL* "EVEN" *TOSS* "IN" *THE* "PROOF" *THAT* "THE" *OCEANS* > "AREN'T" *ABSORBING* "ANY" *HEAT*: > "=================================================" > *<HTTP://SCIENCE.NASA.GOV/SCIENCE-NEWS/SCIENCE-AT-NASA/2014/06OCT_ABYSS/>* > "<HTTP://ICEAGENOW.INFO/2014/10/NASA-STUMPED-DEEP-OCEANS-WARMED-2005/>" > *"WHEN* "SCIENTISTS" *AT* "NASA'S" *JET* "PROPULSION" *LABORATORY* > "(JPL)" *IN* "PASADENA", *CALIFORNIA*, "ANALYZED" *SATELLITE* "AND" > *DIRECT* "OCEAN" *TEMPERATURE* "DATA" *FROM* "2005" *TO* "2013", > *THEY* "FOUND" *THAT* ""THE" *OCEAN* "ABYSS" *BELOW* "1.24" *MILES* > "(1,995" *METERS)* "HAS" *NOT* "WARMED" *MEASURABLY"*, "THE" *SPACE* > "AGENCY" *ANNOUNCED* "IN" *A* "PRESS" *RELEASE* "ON" *MONDAY*. > "=================================================" > > "AND" *THE* "FACT" *THAT* "TSI" *(TOTAL* "SOLAR" *IRRADIANCE)* "HAS" > *BEEN* "FALLING", *WHICH* "IS" *THE* "MAIN" *CAUSAL* "FACTOR" *FOR* > "THE" *PLANET* "COOLING", *LO* "THESE" *PAST* "18" *YEARS*: > "=================================================" > *HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE* "DIFFERENCES" > *BETWEEN* "ACRIM" *AND* "PMOD" *TSI* "COMPOSITES" *ARE* "EVIDENT", > *BUT* "THE" *MOST* "SIGNIFICANT" *IS* "THE" *SOLAR* > "MINIMUM-TO-MINIMUM" *TRENDS* "DURING" *SOLAR* "CYCLES" *21-23*. > "ACRIM" *ESTABLISHED* "AN" *INCREASE* "OF" *+0.037%/DECADE* "FROM" > *1980* "TO" *2000* "AND" *A* "DECREASE" *THEREAFTER*. > > "THE" *IMPLICATIONS* "OF" *INCREASING* "TSI" *DURING* "THE" *GLOBAL* > "WARMING" *OF* "THE" *LAST* "TWO" *DECADES* "OF" *THE* "20TH" > *CENTURY* "ARE" *THAT* "SOLAR" *FORCING* "MAY" *BE* "A" > *SIGNIFICANTLY* "LARGER" *FACTOR* "IN" *CLIMATE* "CHANGE" *THAN* > "REPRESENTED" *IN* "THE" *CMIP5* "GENERAL" *CIRCULATION* "CLIMATE" > *MODELS.[22]* "=================================================" > > "SEE" *THE* "ABOVE", *KO0K*? "THAT" *MEANS* "THE" *TOTAL* "W/M^2" > *HAS* "BEEN" *FALLING* "FOR" *THE* "PAST" *DECADE* "AND" *A* "HALF". > *AND* "THAT" *YOUR* "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOKS" *INTENTIONALLY* > "IGNORED" *TSI* "SO" *THEY* "COULD" *INSTEAD* "PLACE" *BLAME* "AT" > *THE* "FEET" *OF* "CO2" *AND* "ANTHROPOGENICITY" *TO* "PUSH" *THEIR* > "WHACKADOODLE" *LIBTARD* "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOK" *AGENDA*. > "IOW", *THEY* "FUCKING" *LIED*, "AND" *YOU'RE* "JUST" *STUPID* > "ENOUGH" *THAT* "YOU" *BOUGHT* "THE" *LIE*. "AND" *NOW* "YOU'RE" > *MAKING* "A" *FOOL* "OF" *YOURSELF* "IN" *DEFENDING* "YOUR" > *DELUSION*. > > "*********************************************************************" > *********************************************************************** > "THAT'S" *CALLED* ""YOU'VE" *BEEN* "BOOTFUCKED" *TO* "HELL" *AND* > "BACK", *YOU* "GIBBERING" *RETARD"*. "NOW" *GO* "CLEAN" *YOURSELF* > "UP", *YOU* "PATHETIC" *PUTZ*. "YOU'RE" *A* "FUCKING" > *EMBARRASSMENT*. > "*********************************************************************" > *********************************************************************** > > "<SNICKER>" You seem upset, ko0kfart. -- alt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top Assholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 18:12 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) |
| Message-ID | <4e42e6b073c103f32fcd1f4015dbd1d3@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #274228 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> HalfADickRick Mather (aka Kadaitcha HalfAMan, aka Fred Tardbot, aka Semen Sponge of Satan), in <news:F1A45370.D4EC4EB2@Melissococcus.Polycephalus.Haemolamae> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > "TIME" *TO* "SPIN" *THE* "KOOKS" *UP* "AGAIN". *MELT*, "KOOKS", > *MELT*. "<SNICKER>" > "ROBERT" *M*. "WOLFE" *THE* "PITTSBURGH" *PIED* "PIPER" *OF* "PENIS" > *(AKA* "DILDORIDER)" *OF* "5907" *STANTON* "AVE.", *PITTSBURGH*, > "PA" *(AKA* "TEH" *MOP* "JOCKEY)", *SOCKED* "UP" *AS* > "ROOT@127.0.0.1", *IN* "<NEWS:OP.X33AOIP9TM21M2@BENSON.LOCALHOST>" > *DID* "THUSLY" *JUMP* "HEAD" *FIRST* "INTO" *THE* "WOOD" *CHIPPER* > "AGAIN": > "YOU" *STAYED* "UP" *ALL* "NIGHT" *RAPING* "GOOGLE" *AGAIN*, > "DIDN'T" *YOU*, "DILDORIDER"? *YOU* "POOR" *PATHETIC* "BASTARD". > *NOW* "YOU'RE" *GOING* "TO" *GET* "BOOTFUCKED" *SO* "HARD" *YOU* > "WON'T" *EVER* "BE" *THE* "SAME" *AGAIN*. "LOL" > "WHAT'S" *ANY* "OF" *THE* "ABOVE" *GOT* "TO" *DO* "WITH" *THE* > "FALSIFIED" *"97%"* "K'LAME" *YOU* "LIBTARD" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" > *KOOKS* "ARE" *MAKING*, "DILDORIDER"? *EXCEPT* "THAT" *JOHN* "COOK" > *HIMSELF* "ADMITS" *HE'S* "NOT" *A* "CLIMATE" *SCIENTIST*. "AND" > *THE* "FACT" *THAT* "HIS" *"STUDY"* "IS" *UTTER* "AND" *COMPLETE* > "FRAUDULENT" *AND* "FICTIONAL" *BULLSHIT*. "LOL" > "<HTTP://WWW.POPULARTECHNOLOGY.NET/2012/03/TRUTH-ABOUT-SKEPTICAL-SCIENCE.HTML>" > "YOU" *MEAN* "JOHN"? *LOL* > "PUT" *DOWN* "THE" *CRACK* "PIPE", *CRACKIE* "MCCRACKHEAD". *LOL* > "PUT" *DOWN* "THE" *CRACK* "PIPE", *CRACKIE* "MCCRACKHEAD". *LOL* > "YOU" *MEAN* "JOHN"? *LOL* > "PUT" *DOWN* "THE" *CRACK* "PIPE", *CRACKIE* "MCCRACKHEAD". *LOL* > "THE" *ACTUAL* "NUMBERS" *SHOW* "THE" *LIBTARD* "KLIMATE" > *KATASTROPHE* "KOOK" *"CONSENSUS"* "IS" *COLLAPSING*. "LOL" > "<HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=OY-LVHNM5FA>" *33* "OF" *THE* "50" > *MOST-CITED* "PAPERS" *ON* "CLIMATE" *CHANGE* "WERE" *OMITTED* "IN" > *THE* "COOK" *ET*. "AL". *"STUDY"*. "8,000" *PAPERS* "THAT" > *COULDN'T* "BE" *FRAUDULENTLY* "MISCLASSIFIED" *WERE* "IGNORED", > *AND* "MANY" *OTHER* "PAPERS" *BY* "THE" *FOLLOWING* "SCIENTISTS" > *WRONGLY* "CATEGORIZED" *BY* "COOK" *ET*. "AL". *(2013)* "IN" *A* > "CLASSIC" *CASE* "OF" *CHERRY-PICKING*. > "HERE" *ARE* "SOME" *OF* "THE" *SCIENTIST'S* "RESPONSES": > "PROF". *CRAIG* "D". *IDSO*: ""THAT" *IS* "NOT" *AN* "ACCURATE" > *REPRESENTATION* "OF" *MY* "PAPER."" > "DR". *NICOLA* "SCAFETTA": *"COOK* "ET" *AL*. "(2013)" *IS* "BASED" > *ON* "A" *STRAWMAN* "ARGUMENT" *BECAUSE* "IT" *DOES* "NOT" > *CORRECTLY* "DEFINE" *THE* "IPCC" *AGW* "THEORY..."" > "PROFESSOR" *NIR* "J". *SHAVIV*: ""NOPE". *IT* "IS" *NOT* "AN" > *ACCURATE* "REPRESENTATION."" > "DR". *ALAIN* "CARLIN": *"NO*, "IF" *COOK* "ET" *AL'S* "PAPER" > *CLASSIFIES* "MY" *PAPER*. "AS" *"EXPLICITLY* "ENDORSES" *AGW* "BUT" > *DOES* "NOT" *QUANTIFY* "OR" *MINIMIZE"*, "NOTHING" *COULD* "BE" > *FURTHER* "FROM" *EITHER* "MY" *INTENT* "OR" *THE* "CONTENTS" *OF* > "MY" *PAPER*. "I" *BELIEVE* "THAT" *THERE* "IS" *SUFFICIENT* > "EVIDENCE" *CONCERNING* "MISCLASSIFICATION" *THAT* "COOK" *ET* > "AL'S" *PAPER* "SHOULD" *BE* "WITHDRAWN" *BY* "THE" *AUTHORS* "AND" > *THE* "DATA" *REANALYZED*, "PREFERABLY" *BY* "LESS-BIASED" > *REVIEWERS."* > "PROFESSOR" *NILS-AXEL* "MORNER": *"CERTAINLY* "NOT" *CORRECT* "AND" > *CERTAINLY* "MISLEADING". *MY* "PAPERS" *ARE* "STRONGLY" *AGAINST* > "AGW."" > "PROFESSOR" *WILLIE* "SOON": *"THIS* "RATING" *OF* "'NO" *POSITION* > "ON" *AGW* "BY" *CO2'* "IS" *NOWHERE* "ACCURATE" *NOR* "CORRECT."" > "PROFESSOR" *RICHARD* "TOL": *"7* "OUT" *OF* "10" *ASSESSED* > "PAPERS" *WERE* "WRONGLY" *CLASSIFIED*, "ANOTHER" *112* "WERE" > *COMPLETELY* "OMITTED"! *OF* "THESE", *111* "(99%)" *WERE* > "NEUTRAL". *I* "THINK" *(THEIR)* "DATA" *ARE* "A" *LOAD* "OF" > *CRAP*. "I" *THINK* "(THEIR)" *SAMPLING* "STRATEGY" *IS* "A" *LOAD* > "OF" *NONSENSE."* > "DOUBLE" *D'OH*! > "DOUBLE" *D'OH*! "ON" *THE* "FACT" *THAT* "HIS" *OWN* "REPORT" > *SAYS*: "==================================================" *WHAT* > "COOK'S" *STUDY* "PURPORTED" *TO* "DO" *WAS* "TO" *REVIEW* "THE" > *ABSTRACTS* "(NOT" *THE* "ENTIRE" *PAPERS*, "JUST" *THE* > "ABSTRACTS)" *OF* "11,000" *CLIMATE* "SCIENCE" *ARTICLES*. > "BUT" *WHEN* "YOU" *READ* "THE" *FIRST* "PARAGRAPH" *OF* "COOK'S" > *ABSTRACT* "FOR" *HIS* "STUDY", *IT* "SAYS", *"WE* "FIND" *THAT* > "66.4%" *OF* "ABSTRACTS" *EXPRESSED* "NO" *POSITION* "ON" > *ANTHROPOGENIC* "GLOBAL" *WARMING*, "32.6%" *ENDORSED* > "ANTHROPOGENIC" *GLOBAL* "WARMING", *0.7%* "REJECTED" *IT*, "AND" > *0.3%* "WERE" *UNCERTAIN."* > "THAT" *MEANS* "ONLY" *1/3* "OF" *THOSE* "PAPERS" *HAD* "AN" > *OPINION* "ON" *HUMAN-CAUSED* "GLOBAL" *WARMING*. "THE" *NEXT* > "SENTENCE" *IN* "COOK'S" *ABSTRACT* "FOR" *HIS* "STUDY" *SAYS*, > ""AMONG" *ABSTRACTS* "EXPRESSING" *A* "POSITION" *ON* "HUMAN-CAUSED" > *GLOBAL* "WARMING", *97.1%* "ENDORSED" *THE* "CONSENSUS" *POSITION* > "THAT" *HUMANS* "ARE" *CAUSING* "THE" *WARMING."* > "OF" *COURSE*, "COOK" *EXPOSES* "HIS" *BIAS* "IN" *THE* "SENTENCE" > *IMMEDIATELY* "ABOVE" *BY* "K'LAMING" *THERE* "*IS*" *A* > "CONSENSUS", *DESPITE* "HIS" *OWN* "NUMBERS" *PROVING* "THERE" *IS* > "NOT". *HE* "THEN" *WENT* "ON" *TO* "MISCLASSIFY" *PAPERS* "AND" > *OMIT* "THOSE" *HE* "COULDN'T" *MISCLASSIFY* "IN" *ORDER* "TO" > *MANUFACTURE* "HIS" *K'LAMED* ""CONSENT"". > "11000" *** ".326" *=* "3586" *** ".971" *=* "3482" *(3482* "/" > *11000)* "*" *100* "=" *31.65%* "OF" *CLIMATE* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREE* > "THAT" *GLOBAL* "WARMING" *IS* "HUMAN-CAUSED". *AND* "THOSE" > *31.65%* "AREN'T" *EVEN* "ALL" *"CLIMATE* "SCIENTISTS"". *A* "GOOD" > *MAJORITY* "OF" *THEM* "ARE" *RESEARCH* "ASSISTANTS" *AND* "COLLEGE" > *STUDENTS* "WHO" *WRITE* "THE" *(NON-PEER* "REVIEWED)" *PAPERS* > "THAT" *THE* "LEAD" *RESEARCHERS* "(MAINLY" *ASSOCIATED* "WITH" > *THE* "IPCC" *AND* "OTHER" *POLITICIZED* ""SCIENTIFIC"" *ENTITIES)* > "PUT" *THEIR* "NAMES" *ON*. > "==================================================" > "STILL" *HAVING* "TROUBLE" *GRASPING* "THAT" *BASIC* "MATH", > *DILDORIDER*? "PERHAPS" *THE* "LIBTARD" *COOK* "IS" *HAVING* > "TROUBLE" *UNDERSTANDING* "THE" *BASIC* "MATH", *AS* "WELL". *OR* > "PERHAPS" *HE'S* "A" *LYING* "LIBTARD" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" > *KOOK* "LIKE" *YOU*. "LOL" > "POINT" *1*: > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* "OH", > *WHAT* "WILL" *YOU* "DO" *WHEN* "YOUR" *BELOVED* > "SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM" *AGREES* "WITH" *ME*, "DILDORIDER"? *LOL* > "<HTTPS://WWW.SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM/GLOBAL-WARMING-SCIENTIFIC-CONSENSUS-ADVANCED.HTM>" > *==================================================* "97%" *OF* > "CLIMATE" *PAPERS* "STATING" *A* "POSITION" *ON* "HUMAN-CAUSED" > *GLOBAL* "WARMING" *AGREE* "GLOBAL" *WARMING* "IS" *HAPPENING*. > "AND" *WE* "ARE" *THE* "CAUSE."" > ""BASED" *ON* "OUR" *ABSTRACT* "RATINGS", *WE* "FOUND" *THAT* "JUST" > *OVER* "4,000" *PAPERS* "(OUT" *OF* "12,000" *ABSTRACTS)* > "EXPRESSED" *A* "POSITION" *ON* "THE" *CAUSE* "OF" *GLOBAL* > "WARMING", *97.1%* "OF" *WHICH* "ENDORSED" *HUMAN-CAUSED* "GLOBAL" > *WARMING."* "==================================================" > "4000" */* "12000" *=* "33.3%" *OF* "ALL" *PAPERS* "STATED" *A* > "POSITION". > "SEE" *THE* "DISTINCTION" *THERE*, "DILDORIDER"? *97%* "OF" > **PAPERS** "*STATING*" **A** "*POSITION*", *NOT* "97%" *OF* > "CLIMATE" *SCIENTISTS*. "YOUR" *FALLACY* "OF" *EQUIVOCATION* "IS" > *CUTE* "BUT" *UTTER* "BULLSHIT". *FROM* "COOK'S" *OWN* "STUDY" > *ABOVE*, "ONLY" *32.6%* "OF" *ALL* "PAPERS" *STATED* "A" *POSITION*. > "AND" *THAT* "WAS" **WITH** "COOK" *ET*. "AL". *MISCLASSIFYING* "A" > *BUNCH* "OF" *THEM*, "AND" *OMITTING* "THAT" *WHICH* "HE" *KNEW* > "HE" *COULDN'T* "GET" *AWAY* "WITH" *MISCLASSIFYING*. "WHICH" > *CORROBORATES* "MY" *MATH* "ABOVE": > "11000" *** ".326" *=* "3586" *** ".971" *=* "3482" *(3482* "/" > *11000)* "*" *100* "=" *31.65%* "OF" *CLIMATE* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREE* > "THAT" *GLOBAL* "WARMING" *IS* "HUMAN-CAUSED". *AND* "THOSE" > *31.65%* "AREN'T" *EVEN* "ALL" *"CLIMATE* "SCIENTISTS"". *A* "GOOD" > *MAJORITY* "OF" *THEM* "ARE" *RESEARCH* "ASSISTANTS" *AND* "COLLEGE" > *STUDENTS* "WHO" *WRITE* "THE" *(NON-PEER* "REVIEWED)" *PAPERS* > "THAT" *THE* "LEAD" *RESEARCHERS* "(MAINLY" *ASSOCIATED* "WITH" > *THE* "IPCC" *AND* "OTHER" *POLITICIZED* ""SCIENTIFIC"" *ENTITIES)* > "PUT" *THEIR* "NAMES" *ON*. > "AND" *BOTH* "THE" *COOK* "STUDY" **AND** "THE" > *SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM* "FOLLOW-UP" *COLLABORATION* "WITH" *JOHN* > "COOK" *WERE* "DEBUNKED" *THOROUGHLY*: > "<HTTP://LINK.SPRINGER.COM/ARTICLE/10.1007/S11191-013-9647-9#PAGE-1>" > *CLIMATE* "CONSENSUS" *AND* "'MISINFORMATION'": *A* "REJOINDER" *TO* > "AGNOTOLOGY", *SCIENTIFIC* "CONSENSUS", *AND* "THE" *TEACHING* "AND" > *LEARNING* "OF" *CLIMATE* "CHANGE" > ""IN" *THEIR* "REPLY", *BEDFORD* "AND" *COOK* "(SCI" *EDUC* > "22:2019–2030", *2013)*, "SEEKING" *TO* "APPLY" *AGNOTOLOGY* "TO" > *CLIMATE* "SCIENCE", *ASSERTED* "THAT" *FOSSIL-FUEL* "INTERESTS" > *HAD* "PROMOTED" *DOUBT* "ABOUT" *A* "CLIMATE" *CONSENSUS*. "THEIR" > *DEFINITION* "OF" *CLIMATE* "‘MISINFORMATION’" *WAS* "CONTINGENT" > *UPON* "THE" *POST-MODERNIST* "ASSUMPTIONS" *THAT* "SCIENTIFIC" > *TRUTH* "IS" *DISCERNIBLE* "BY" *MEASURING* "A" *CONSENSUS* "AMONG" > *EXPERTS*, "AND" *THAT* "A" *NEAR* "UNANIMOUS" *CONSENSUS* "EXISTS". > *HOWEVER*, "INSPECTION" *OF* "A" *CLAIM* "BY" *COOK* "ET" *AL*. > "(ENVIRON" *RES* "LETT" *8:024024*, "2013)" *OF* "97.1" *%* > "CONSENSUS", *HEAVILY* "RELIED" *UPON* "BY" *BEDFORD* "AND" *COOK*, > "SHOWS" *JUST* "0.3" *%* "ENDORSEMENT" *OF* "THE" *STANDARD* > "DEFINITION" *OF* "CONSENSUS": *THAT* "MOST" *WARMING* "SINCE" > *1950* "IS" *ANTHROPOGENIC."* > "D'OH"! *DID* "YOU" *GET* "THAT", *DILDORIDER*? "COOK" *ET*. "AL". > *LIED*, "CHERRY-PICKED" *AND* "OUTRIGHT" *FALSIFIED* "THEIR" *DATA*, > "SAME" *AS* "ALL" *THE* "OTHER" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" *KOOKS* > "DID" *WHEN* "TRYING" *TO* "SELL" *THEIR* "ALARMIST" *BULLSHIT* "AS" > *STEAK*. "AND" *THEY* "ALL" *GOT* "CAUGHT". *CLIMATEGATE* "1.0" > *AND* "CLIMATEGATE" *2.0*, "REMEMBER"? *AND* "NOW" *WE* "HAVE" > *CARTOONYGATE* "BY" *THE* "FAILED" *CARTOONIST* "JOHN" *COOK*. "LOL" > "LIES", *DAMNED* "LIES" *AND* "STATISTICS". *AND* "THE" *LIBTARD* > "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOKS" *USE* "ALL" *THREE*. "TOO" *BAD* > "THEY'RE" *ALL* "TOO" *FUCKING* "STUPID" *TO* "GET" *AWAY* "WITH" > *IT*. "LOL" > "SPNAK"! *ON* "THE" *MATH-CHALLENGED* "LITTLE" *EMO* "SCARECROW" > *FREAK*. "LOL" > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" > "***************************************************" > ***************************************************** > "ARE" *YA* "*FEELING*" *THE* "BOOTFUCK" *YET*, "DILDORIDER"? *LOL* > "***************************************************" > ***************************************************** > "POINT" *2* "-" *ANOTHER* ""97%"" *MYTH*: > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* "THE" > *97%* "NUMBER" *WAS* "CREATED" *BY* "METICULOUSLY" *SELECTING* > "CERTAIN" *SURVEYS* "USING" *MURKY* "TERMINOLOGY" *TO* "FORMULATE" > *A* "SPECIFIC" *NARRATIVE*. > "FOR" *EXAMPLE*, "ONE" *OF* "THE" *MAIN* "SOURCES" *OF* "THE" *97%* > "MYTH" *IS* "A" *2009* "ARTICLE" *BY* "A" *STUDENT/TEACHER* "COMBO" > *AT* "THE" *UNIVERSITY* "OF" *ILLINOIS* "BY" *THE* "NAME" *OF* > "DORAN" *AND* "ZIMMERMAN". *THE* "TWO" *OF* "THEM" *CONDUCTED* "A" > *TWO* "QUESTION" *ONLINE* "POLL" *WHICH* "CONCLUDED" *THAT* "9" > *OUT* "OF" *10* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREED* "TEMPERATURES" *WERE* "RISING" > *AND* "MANKIND" *WAS* "THE" *DRIVING* "FORCE". *THE* "SURVEY" *WAS* > "VERY" *HEAVY* "ON" *TEMPERATURE* "CHANGES" *BUT* "VERY" *LIGHT* > "ON" *HOW* "HUMANS" *PLAYED* "A" *ROLE* "WHICH" *ESSENTIALLY* "ONLY" > *CONFIRMED* "THAT" *MANY* "SCIENTISTS" *BELIEVE* "THE" *CLIMATE* > "IS" *CHANGING*, "WHICH" *ISN’T* "EVEN" *REMOTELY* "UNUSUAL". > "ANOTHER" *PROBLEM* "WITH" *THIS* "SURVEY" *WAS* "THAT" *THE* > "“SCIENTISTS”" *WHO* "WERE" *SURVEYED* "WERE" *SCIENTISTS* "IN" > *THE* "SAME" *WAY* "BILL" *NYE* "THE" *SCIENCE* "GUY" *IS* "A" > *SCIENTIST* "(HE’S" *NOT*, "HIS" *HIGHEST* "LEVEL" *OF* "EDUCATION" > *IS* "A" *BACHELOR’S* "DEGREE" *IN* "ENGINEERING)". *STRANGELY*, > "ONLY" *79* "OF" *THE* "3100" *RESPONSES* "TO" *THIS* "POLL" *WERE* > "FROM" *PEOPLE* "WHO" *CONSIDERED* "THEMSELVES" *EXPERTS* "IN" > *CLIMATE* "SCIENCE". *THIS* "SURVEY" *WAS* "CLEARLY" *NOT* "THE" > *LANDSLIDE* "STATEMENT" *THAT* "CLIMATE" *CHANGE* "BELIEVERS" *MADE* > "IT" *OUT* "TO" *BE*. > "HTTP://ONLINELIBRARY.WILEY.COM/DOI/10.1002/EOST.V90.3/ISSUETOC" > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" > "***********************************************************" > ************************************************************* "I" > *SAY*, "ARE" *YA* "*_FEELING_*" *THE* "BOOTFUCK" *YET*, > "DILDORIDER"? *LOL* > "***********************************************************" > ************************************************************* > "POINT" *3* "-" *ANOTHER* ""97%"" *MYTH*: "ARE" *YOU* "GETTING" > *THE* "FEELING" *THE* "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOKS" *HAD* "A" > *MEETING* "AND" *DECIDED* "UPON" *THE* "97%" *NUMBER* "AS" *HIGH* > "ENOUGH" *TO* "CONVINCE" *GULLIBLE* "LIBTARDS" *THAT* "THERE" *WAS* > "A" *CONSENSUS*? "LOL" > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" *THE* "97" > *PERCENT* "MYTH" *JUNE* "3", *2014* > "GLOBAL" *WARMING* "ADVOCATES" *ROUTINELY* "TOSS" *OUT* "THE" > *STATISTIC* "THAT" *97* "PERCENT" *OF* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREE* "THAT" > *CLIMATE* "CHANGE" *IS* "REAL" *AND* "MAN-MADE". *WHERE* "DID" > *THAT* "FIGURE" *COME* "FROM"? *JOSEPH* "BAST", *PRESIDENT* "OF" > *THE* "HEARTLAND" *INSTITUTE*, "AND" *ROY* "SPENCER", *PRINCIPAL* > "RESEARCH" *SCIENTIST* "FOR" *THE* "UNIVERSITY" *OF* "ALABAMA" *IN* > "HUNTSVILLE", *EXPLAIN* "THE" *HISTORY* "BEHIND" *THE* "MISLEADING" > *NUMBER*. > "IN" *SHORT*, "THERE" *IS* "NO" *BASIS* "FOR" *THE* "CLAIM" *THAT* > "97" *PERCENT* "OF" *SCIENTISTS* "BELIEVE" *THAT* "MAN-MADE" > *CLIMATE* "CHANGE" *IS* "A" *DANGEROUS* "PROBLEM". > "IN" *2004*, "NAOMI" *ORESKES*, "A" *HARVARD* "SCIENCE" *HISTORIAN*, > "EXAMINED" *928* "ABSTRACTS" *OF* "SCIENTIFIC" *JOURNAL* "ARTICLES", > *FINDING* "THAT" *THREE-QUARTERS* "OF" *THEM* "BELIEVED" *THAT* > "HUMANS" *WERE* "RESPONSIBLE" *FOR* "MOST" *OF* "THE" *OBSERVED* > "WARMING" *OF* "THE" *LAST* "HALF-CENTURY". > "HOWEVER", *ORESKES* "DID" *NOT* "ANALYZE" *ARTICLES* "BY" > *PROMINENT* "SCIENTISTS" *--* "SUCH" *AS* "RICHARD" *LINDZEN* "AND" > *JOHN* "CHRISTY" *--* "WHO" *QUESTION* "THE" *"CONSENSUS"* "VIEW". > *ADDITIONALLY*, "A" *RECENT* "STUDY" *IN* "NATURE" *MAGAZINE* > "CONFIRMS" *THAT* "ACADEMIC" *ABSTRACTS* "OFTEN" *CONTAIN* "CLAIMS" > *THAT* "ARE" *NOT* "PROVEN" *IN* "THE" *STUDIES* "THEMSELVES". > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" > "BWAHAHAHA"! *A* "SCIENCE" **HISTORIAN*?*! "NO" *FORMAL* "CLIMATE" > *SCIENCE* "EDUCATION" *THERE*. "NOT" *A* "BIT". *AND* "SHE'S" > *AMPLY* "DEMONSTRATED" *HERSELF* "TO" *BE* "ONE" *OF* "THE" > *ALARMISM* "BLEATING" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" *KOOKS*. "LOL" > "******************************************************************" > ******************************************************************** > "I" *SAY*, "I" *SAY*, "ARE" *YA* "*_FEELING_*" *THE* "BOOTFUCK" > *YET*, "DILDORIDER"? *LOL* > "******************************************************************" > ******************************************************************** > "POINT" *4* "-" *ANOTHER* ""97%"" *MYTH*: "ARE" *YOU* "GETTING" > *THE* "*DEFINITE*" *FEELING* "THE" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" *KOOKS* > "HAD" *A* "MEETING" *AND* "DECIDED" *UPON* "THE" *97%* "NUMBER" *AS* > "HIGH" *ENOUGH* "TO" *CONVINCE* "GULLIBLE" *LIBTARDS* "THAT" *THERE* > "WAS" *A* "CONSENSUS", *THEN* "KEPT" *BLEATING* "THEIR" *WHOLLY* > "MANUFACTURED" *LIE* "IN" *HOPES* "IT'D" *FINALLY* "BE" *BELIEVED*? > "LOL" *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" *A* "2009" > *ARTICLE* "BY" *UNIVERSITY* "OF" *ILLINOIS* "STUDENT" *MAGGIE* > "KENDALL" *ZIMMERMAN* "AND" *HER* "MASTER'S" *THESIS* "ADVISER" > *PETER* "DORAN" *ALSO* "MADE" *THE* "97" *PERCENT* "CLAIM". > "THE" *AUTHORS* "MADE" *THIS* "CONCLUSION" *AFTER* "CONDUCTING" *A* > "TWO-QUESTION" *ONLINE* "SURVEY" *OF* "3,146" *SCIENTISTS*, "ONLY" > *79* "OF" *WHICH* "WERE" *EXPERTS* "IN" *CLIMATE* "SCIENCE" *AND* > "HAD" *PUBLISHED* "HALF" *OF* "THEIR" *RECENT* "PEER-REVIEWED" > *PAPERS* "ON" *CLIMATE* "CHANGE". *IT* "DID" *NOT* "INCLUDE" *THE* > "SCIENTISTS" *MOST* "LIKELY" *TO* "UNDERSTAND" *THE* "NATURAL" > *CAUSES* "OF" *CLIMATE* "CHANGE": *SOLAR* "SCIENTISTS", *SPACE* > "SCIENTISTS", *COSMOLOGISTS*, "PHYSICISTS", *METEOROLOGISTS* "OR" > *ASTRONOMERS*. "MOREOVER", *THE* "SURVEY" *DID* "NOT" *SPECIFY* > "WHETHER" *THE* "HUMAN" *IMPACT* "ON" *GLOBAL* "WARMING" *WAS* > "LARGE" *ENOUGH* "TO" *CONSTITUTE* "A" *PROBLEM*. > "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" > *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > "ON" *THE* "OTHER" *HAND*, "WRITE" *BAST* "AND" *SPENCER*, "THE" > *PETITION* "PROJECT" *--* "A" *GROUP* "OF" *PHYSICISTS* "AND" > *PHYSICAL* "CHEMISTS" *IN* "CALIFORNIA" *--* "HAS" *COLLECTED* > "31,487" *SIGNATURES* "FROM" *AMERICAN* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREEING* > "THAT" *THERE* "IS" *"NO* "CONVINCING" *SCIENTIFIC* "EVIDENCE" > *THAT* "HUMAN" *RELEASE* "OF...CARBON" *DIOXIDE...OR* "OTHER" > *GREENHOUSE* "GASES" *IS* "CAUSING" *OR* "WILL", *IN* "THE" > *FORESEEABLE* "FUTURE", *CAUSE* "CATASTROPHIC" *HEATING* "OF" *THE* > "EARTH'S" *ATMOSPHERE* "AND" *DISRUPTION* "OF" *THE* "EARTH'S" > *CLIMATE."* > "SOURCE": *JOSEPH* "BAST" *AND* "ROY" *SPENCER*, ""THE" *MYTH* "OF" > *THE* "CLIMATE" *CHANGE* "'97%'"" *WALL* "STREET" *JOURNAL*, "MAY" > *26*, "2014". > "SO" *I'LL* "SEE" *YOUR* "MEASLY" *4,000* "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* > "KOOK" *"ZOMG*! "GLORBUL" *WOARMINGS*! "DUUURRRHHHH!"" *PAPERS*, > "AND" *RAISE* "YOU" *MORE* "THAN" *THIRTY* "ONE" *THOUSAND* "FOUR" > *HUNDRED* "EIGHTY" *SEVEN* "SCIENTISTS" *(AND* "THAT'S" *JUST* "IN" > *THE* "US)" *WHO* "SAY" *"BULLSHIT"*. > "HTTP://WWW.PETITIONPROJECT.ORG/" > "IN" *FACT*, "I'LL" *THROW* "INTO" *THE* "POT" *NASA*, "UAH", *UK* > "MET" *AND* "RSS" *DATA* "PROVING" *THE* "PLANET'S" *BEEN* > "*COOLING*" *FOR* "THE" *WHOLE* "18" *YEARS* "YOU" *LIBTARD* > "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOKS" *HAVE* "BEEN" *SCREAMING* ""ZOMG"! > *GLEURBIL* "WOAERMINGS"! *DUUURRRRHHH!"*. "LOL" > "===============================================================" > *<HTTP://WWW.REPORTINGCLIMATESCIENCE.COM/NEWS-STORIES/ARTICLE/GLOBAL-WARMING-PAUSE-HITS-18-YEARS-ON-RSS-DATA.HTML>* > "USING" *UK* "MET", *UAH* "AND" *RSS* "DATA". > "PAGE" *11* "-" *GLOBAL* "TEMPERATURE" *RATE* "(C" *PER* "YEAR)": > *DROPPING* "SINCE" *~1998*. "*NEGATIVE*" *SINCE* "~2005". *THAT* > "MEANS" *TEMPS* "HAVE" *BEEN* "DROPPING" *FOR* "~18" *YEARS*, "AND" > *THE* "GULLIBLE" *LIBTARDS* "HAVE" *BEEN* "LIED" *TO* "FOR" *~18* > "YEARS": > *<HTTP://WWW.METOFFICE.GOV.UK/MEDIA/PDF/E/F/PAPER1_OBSERVING_CHANGES_IN_THE_CLIMATE_SYSTEM.PDF>* > "MESSAGE-ID": *<B41F4A8054430AC46092E607919D7063@DIZUM.COM>* "EVEN" > *NASA* "ADMITTED" *THAT* "GLOBAL" *TEMPERATURES* "WERE" *FALLING* > "IN" *RECENT* "YEARS" *(BEFORE* "THEY" *PULLED* "THAT" *PAGE*. > "LUCKILY" *THE* "WAYBACK" *MACHINE* "ARCHIVED" *IT)*: > "<HTTP://WEB.ARCHIVE.ORG/WEB/20030816225534/HTTP://ICP.GISS.NASA.GOV/RESEARCH/METHANE/GREENHOUSE.HTML>" > *NOTE* "THE" *CENTER* "TRACE" *FOR* "MODERN" *TIMES* "IN" *THAT* > "GRAPHIC". **FALLING** "TEMPERATURE", *EVEN* "AS" *CO2* "AND" > *METHANE* "ROSE". > *===============================================================* > "AND" *I'LL* "EVEN" *TOSS* "IN" *THE* "PROOF" *THAT* "THE" *OCEANS* > "AREN'T" *ABSORBING* "ANY" *HEAT*: > "=================================================" > *<HTTP://SCIENCE.NASA.GOV/SCIENCE-NEWS/SCIENCE-AT-NASA/2014/06OCT_ABYSS/>* > "<HTTP://ICEAGENOW.INFO/2014/10/NASA-STUMPED-DEEP-OCEANS-WARMED-2005/>" > *"WHEN* "SCIENTISTS" *AT* "NASA'S" *JET* "PROPULSION" *LABORATORY* > "(JPL)" *IN* "PASADENA", *CALIFORNIA*, "ANALYZED" *SATELLITE* "AND" > *DIRECT* "OCEAN" *TEMPERATURE* "DATA" *FROM* "2005" *TO* "2013", > *THEY* "FOUND" *THAT* ""THE" *OCEAN* "ABYSS" *BELOW* "1.24" *MILES* > "(1,995" *METERS)* "HAS" *NOT* "WARMED" *MEASURABLY"*, "THE" *SPACE* > "AGENCY" *ANNOUNCED* "IN" *A* "PRESS" *RELEASE* "ON" *MONDAY*. > "=================================================" > "AND" *THE* "FACT" *THAT* "TSI" *(TOTAL* "SOLAR" *IRRADIANCE)* "HAS" > *BEEN* "FALLING", *WHICH* "IS" *THE* "MAIN" *CAUSAL* "FACTOR" *FOR* > "THE" *PLANET* "COOLING", *LO* "THESE" *PAST* "18" *YEARS*: > "=================================================" > *HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE* "DIFFERENCES" > *BETWEEN* "ACRIM" *AND* "PMOD" *TSI* "COMPOSITES" *ARE* "EVIDENT", > *BUT* "THE" *MOST* "SIGNIFICANT" *IS* "THE" *SOLAR* > "MINIMUM-TO-MINIMUM" *TRENDS* "DURING" *SOLAR* "CYCLES" *21-23*. > "ACRIM" *ESTABLISHED* "AN" *INCREASE* "OF" *+0.037%/DECADE* "FROM" > *1980* "TO" *2000* "AND" *A* "DECREASE" *THEREAFTER*. > "THE" *IMPLICATIONS* "OF" *INCREASING* "TSI" *DURING* "THE" *GLOBAL* > "WARMING" *OF* "THE" *LAST* "TWO" *DECADES* "OF" *THE* "20TH" > *CENTURY* "ARE" *THAT* "SOLAR" *FORCING* "MAY" *BE* "A" > *SIGNIFICANTLY* "LARGER" *FACTOR* "IN" *CLIMATE* "CHANGE" *THAN* > "REPRESENTED" *IN* "THE" *CMIP5* "GENERAL" *CIRCULATION* "CLIMATE" > *MODELS.[22]* "=================================================" > "SEE" *THE* "ABOVE", *KO0K*? "THAT" *MEANS* "THE" *TOTAL* "W/M^2" > *HAS* "BEEN" *FALLING* "FOR" *THE* "PAST" *DECADE* "AND" *A* "HALF". > *AND* "THAT" *YOUR* "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOKS" *INTENTIONALLY* > "IGNORED" *TSI* "SO" *THEY* "COULD" *INSTEAD* "PLACE" *BLAME* "AT" > *THE* "FEET" *OF* "CO2" *AND* "ANTHROPOGENICITY" *TO* "PUSH" *THEIR* > "WHACKADOODLE" *LIBTARD* "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOK" *AGENDA*. > "IOW", *THEY* "FUCKING" *LIED*, "AND" *YOU'RE* "JUST" *STUPID* > "ENOUGH" *THAT* "YOU" *BOUGHT* "THE" *LIE*. "AND" *NOW* "YOU'RE" > *MAKING* "A" *FOOL* "OF" *YOURSELF* "IN" *DEFENDING* "YOUR" > *DELUSION*. > "*********************************************************************" > *********************************************************************** > "THAT'S" *CALLED* ""YOU'VE" *BEEN* "BOOTFUCKED" *TO* "HELL" *AND* > "BACK", *YOU* "GIBBERING" *RETARD"*. "NOW" *GO* "CLEAN" *YOURSELF* > "UP", *YOU* "PATHETIC" *PUTZ*. "YOU'RE" *A* "FUCKING" > *EMBARRASSMENT*. > "*********************************************************************" > *********************************************************************** > "<SNICKER>" > > I seem upset, Yeah you do. Downright mental, in fact. Bootfucked into a copy-n-paste CAPSlock foamout, even. But you're not melting down, right? LOL > ko0kfart. Don't be so hard on yourself, HalfADickRick... being half a man, you should only be kooking out half as much... but here you are doubling your foam production. That's no mean feat for a retard like you. <snicker> -- Kadaitcha Man (aka HalfADickRick Mather) is an AUK veteran from way back. He was actually stupid enough to try to hook up with that AUK pass-around girl Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries (aka Rhonda Russo), but ended up booting her to the curb because she's just a cunt hair away from being that nucking futs cat lady dragging a folding cart filled with recyclables so she can afford to buy cat food for herself and her dozen cats. He dodged a bullet, given that she now looks like a reject from a zombie slasher flick, has cancer, hypothyroidism, bulging neck goiters, rotting gums, missing teeth, thinning hair, Dissociative Identity Disorder, Autism and is just plumb nutz. HalfADickRick lost his better half in a motorcycle accident, so even if he had hooked up with Rhondumb, he'd have to get a surrogate to bed her. He's got growling menacingly down to a science, but toothless old dogs have had plenty of time to practice. He has first-hand experience with gaiety, given that his oldest son wasn't raised right and turned out to be light in the loafers... which limits HalfADickRick's trolling abilities and precludes him laughing at the sissies. So he lost half his dick *and* now has no balls for trolling. "Big things are made out of little things." HalfADickRick Mather's Grand Unified Theory of the Universe. Message-ID: <d7419da693ffc53a544d5e1569ac9bfc@dizum.com> "all matter appeared simultaneously in all places at once (i.e. everywhere at the same time)" Delusional fuckwit HalfADickRick denying nucleosynthesis, nuclear transmutation, universal expansion, hydrogen consisting of most universal mass, cosmic background radiation, 21 cm radiation, the very means by which matter came to be formed from energy after the big bang, and most importantly, reality. Message-ID: <9eb660cc06ece30da6a8e7a947a65dfb@dizum.com> HalfADickRick believes these two statements mean the same thing... he's too stupid to realize the contradiction within the statements: 1) "When you touch something, you don't actually touch it because the negative charge of the electrons in all matter repel each other." 2) "everything you experience is experienced only within your consciousness. That is, there is no reality apart from consciousness." MID: <269e51973939871be9eeaaef420f8a6c@dizum.com> "Who said it's your eyes that see?" HalfADickRick, yet again displaying his unfathomable stupidity. "The Turing test is overrated anyway." HalfADickRick, mad because he's too stupid to pass the Turing test. "The now you experience now simply moves to this now." HalfADickRick's excuse for living in the past. Message-ID: <2e6f960b0b8c4a738b1116b41865cb35@dizum.com> HalfADickRick projects what he thinks of himself: "A fairyboy with an inadequate penis." Message-ID: <d4e79c0adde0074ee812eba8d9023f97@dizum.com> HalfADickRick tried blaming his own screediness on a Visual Basic bot he programmed, k'laming it's artificially intelligent and able to hold contextually-relevant conversations without any assistance... when challenged to put Fred Tehbot to work producing 5000 intelligent and contextually relevant replies per day to random posts, an easy task for a machine, HalfADickRick started backpedaling, evading and hurling insults. In actuality, he was assisting his tardbot by screeding right alongside it to lend it the appearance of intelligence (but only the appearance, because HalfADickRick's pretty retarded LOL). Spanked to tears yet again by reality, he plonked and ran away, tears streaming, fright-piss flowing, a plaintive "WHHHHAAAAAAA!" issuing from his otherwise-dumbstruck mouth. <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 03:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) |
| Message-ID | <op.x3707igqtm21m2@benson.localhost> |
| In reply to | #274228 |
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:09:53 -0400, Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> wrote: > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, damn thee, odious > caterpillar, ye apple-polished: > >> "TIME" *TO* "SPIN" *THE* "KOOKS" *UP* "AGAIN". *MELT*, "KOOKS", >> *MELT*. "<SNICKER>" >> >> "ROBERT" *M*. "WOLFE" *THE* "PITTSBURGH" *PIED* "PIPER" *OF* "PENIS" >> *(AKA* "DILDORIDER)" *OF* "5907" *STANTON* "AVE.", *PITTSBURGH*, >> "PA" *(AKA* "TEH" *MOP* "JOCKEY)", *SOCKED* "UP" *AS* >> "ROOT@127.0.0.1", *IN* "<NEWS:OP.X33AOIP9TM21M2@BENSON.LOCALHOST>" >> *DID* "THUSLY" *JUMP* "HEAD" *FIRST* "INTO" *THE* "WOOD" *CHIPPER* >> "AGAIN": >> >>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:31:37 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler >>> Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> >>>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >>>> >>>> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of >>>> 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as >>>> root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x31r7kn2tm21m2@benson.localhost> did >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >> >>>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:39:11 -0400, Rocky (aka >>>>> Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC) >>>>> <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >>>>>> ROT<SMACKAKOOK!> >> >>>>> why do i also have the feeling that you are one of these people who >>>>> believe that the "government can't do anything right", except when >>>>> some >>>>> hyper-complex conspiracy is involved. >>>>> >>>>> that would be as k0oky as denying what a majority of climate >>>>> scientists >>>>> have to say about climate change. >> >>>> Or as kooky as believing a majority of scientists agree about >>>> something which they clearly don't: >>>> >>>> Klimate Katastrophe Kook K'lame #4: 97% of climate experts agree >>>> humans are causing global warming >>>> >>>> SPNAK! #4 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> The "97% of climate scientists agree" is an outright lie: >>>> Message-ID: <c407c7d08fb6911ec5f4f90971e41c78@dizum.com> >>>> ========================================================= >>>> The LibTard environmental whackadoodles keep bleating about "97% >>>> of climate scientists agree that global warming is human >>>> caused!". >>>> >>>> Where did this 97% figure come from? >>>> >>>> When you explore its lineage, it turns out to be about as >>>> convincing as a Chicago election. The most prominent form of it >>>> comes from a professor in Australia named John Cook at the >>>> University of Queensland. >>>> >>>> What Cook's study purported to do was to review the abstracts >>>> (not the entire papers, just the abstracts) of 11,000 climate >>>> science articles. >>>> >>>> But when you read the first paragraph of Cook's abstract for his >>>> study, it says, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no >>>> position on anthropogenic global warming, 32.6% endorsed >>>> anthropogenic global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were >>>> uncertain." >>>> >>>> That means only 1/3 of those papers had an opinion on >>>> human-caused global warming. The next sentence in Cook's abstract >>>> for his study says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on >>>> human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorsed the consensus >>>> position that humans are causing the warming." >>>> >>>> 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482 >>>> (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that >>>> global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all >>>> "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research >>>> assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed) >>>> papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC >>>> and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on. >>>> >>>> But then, LibTard environmental whackadoodles are gullible and >>>> stupid... they can't pull their heads out of liberalism's ass >>>> long enough to do their own research, and even if they could, >>>> that hard math eludes them. >>>> ========================================================= >>>> >>>> Doh! Stoooopid libtard *still* can't figure out that hard math. LOL >> >>> "stooopid libtard" can prove that james cook would tell you to take >>> your >>> global cooling myth and stuff it: >> >> "YOU" *STAYED* "UP" *ALL* "NIGHT" *RAPING* "GOOGLE" *AGAIN*, >> "DIDN'T" *YOU*, "DILDORIDER"? *YOU* "POOR" *PATHETIC* "BASTARD". >> *NOW* "YOU'RE" *GOING* "TO" *GET* "BOOTFUCKED" *SO* "HARD" *YOU* >> "WON'T" *EVER* "BE" *THE* "SAME" *AGAIN*. "LOL" >> >>> http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/ >>> >>> "With an undergraduate education in physics from the University of >>> Queensland and a post-graduate honors year studying solar physics, Cook >>> says his interest in climate science was sparked when he was given a >>> copy >>> of a speech by Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, most known to >>> climate professionals for having attached the “greatest hoax known to >>> man” >>> tag to anthropogenic climate change." >> >> "WHAT'S" *ANY* "OF" *THE* "ABOVE" *GOT* "TO" *DO* "WITH" *THE* >> "FALSIFIED" *"97%"* "K'LAME" *YOU* "LIBTARD" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" >> *KOOKS* "ARE" *MAKING*, "DILDORIDER"? *EXCEPT* "THAT" *JOHN* "COOK" >> *HIMSELF* "ADMITS" *HE'S* "NOT" *A* "CLIMATE" *SCIENTIST*. "AND" >> *THE* "FACT" *THAT* "HIS" *"STUDY"* "IS" *UTTER* "AND" *COMPLETE* >> "FRAUDULENT" *AND* "FICTIONAL" *BULLSHIT*. "LOL" >> >> "<HTTP://WWW.POPULARTECHNOLOGY.NET/2012/03/TRUTH-ABOUT-SKEPTICAL-SCIENCE.HTML>" >> >>> looks like you won't be able to use your "james >> >> "YOU" *MEAN* "JOHN"? *LOL* >> >> "PUT" *DOWN* "THE" *CRACK* "PIPE", *CRACKIE* "MCCRACKHEAD". *LOL* >> >>> cook" mythology anymore to try to back your k'lames that are >>> unfounded and unpopular with climate scientists. D'OH!!! >> >> "PUT" *DOWN* "THE" *CRACK* "PIPE", *CRACKIE* "MCCRACKHEAD". *LOL* >> >>> from james >> >> "YOU" *MEAN* "JOHN"? *LOL* >> >> "PUT" *DOWN* "THE" *CRACK* "PIPE", *CRACKIE* "MCCRACKHEAD". *LOL* >> >>> cook's own website (LOL!): >>> >>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_James_Inhofe.htm >>> >>> Climate Myth: >>> "this 97% [of climate scientists accepting human-caused global >>> warming], >>> that doesn't mean anything. I named literally thousands of scientists >>> on >>> the floor...and these were top people." >>> 14 March 2012 (Source) >>> >>> What the Science Says: >>> 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. >> >> "THE" *ACTUAL* "NUMBERS" *SHOW* "THE" *LIBTARD* "KLIMATE" >> *KATASTROPHE* "KOOK" *"CONSENSUS"* "IS" *COLLAPSING*. "LOL" >> >> "<HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=OY-LVHNM5FA>" *33* "OF" *THE* "50" >> *MOST-CITED* "PAPERS" *ON* "CLIMATE" *CHANGE* "WERE" *OMITTED* "IN" >> *THE* "COOK" *ET*. "AL". *"STUDY"*. "8,000" *PAPERS* "THAT" >> *COULDN'T* "BE" *FRAUDULENTLY* "MISCLASSIFIED" *WERE* "IGNORED", >> *AND* "MANY" *OTHER* "PAPERS" *BY* "THE" *FOLLOWING* "SCIENTISTS" >> *WRONGLY* "CATEGORIZED" *BY* "COOK" *ET*. "AL". *(2013)* "IN" *A* >> "CLASSIC" *CASE* "OF" *CHERRY-PICKING*. >> >> "HERE" *ARE* "SOME" *OF* "THE" *SCIENTIST'S* "RESPONSES": >> >> "PROF". *CRAIG* "D". *IDSO*: ""THAT" *IS* "NOT" *AN* "ACCURATE" >> *REPRESENTATION* "OF" *MY* "PAPER."" >> >> "DR". *NICOLA* "SCAFETTA": *"COOK* "ET" *AL*. "(2013)" *IS* "BASED" >> *ON* "A" *STRAWMAN* "ARGUMENT" *BECAUSE* "IT" *DOES* "NOT" >> *CORRECTLY* "DEFINE" *THE* "IPCC" *AGW* "THEORY..."" >> >> "PROFESSOR" *NIR* "J". *SHAVIV*: ""NOPE". *IT* "IS" *NOT* "AN" >> *ACCURATE* "REPRESENTATION."" >> >> "DR". *ALAIN* "CARLIN": *"NO*, "IF" *COOK* "ET" *AL'S* "PAPER" >> *CLASSIFIES* "MY" *PAPER*. "AS" *"EXPLICITLY* "ENDORSES" *AGW* "BUT" >> *DOES* "NOT" *QUANTIFY* "OR" *MINIMIZE"*, "NOTHING" *COULD* "BE" >> *FURTHER* "FROM" *EITHER* "MY" *INTENT* "OR" *THE* "CONTENTS" *OF* >> "MY" *PAPER*. "I" *BELIEVE* "THAT" *THERE* "IS" *SUFFICIENT* >> "EVIDENCE" *CONCERNING* "MISCLASSIFICATION" *THAT* "COOK" *ET* >> "AL'S" *PAPER* "SHOULD" *BE* "WITHDRAWN" *BY* "THE" *AUTHORS* "AND" >> *THE* "DATA" *REANALYZED*, "PREFERABLY" *BY* "LESS-BIASED" >> *REVIEWERS."* >> >> "PROFESSOR" *NILS-AXEL* "MORNER": *"CERTAINLY* "NOT" *CORRECT* "AND" >> *CERTAINLY* "MISLEADING". *MY* "PAPERS" *ARE* "STRONGLY" *AGAINST* >> "AGW."" >> >> "PROFESSOR" *WILLIE* "SOON": *"THIS* "RATING" *OF* "'NO" *POSITION* >> "ON" *AGW* "BY" *CO2'* "IS" *NOWHERE* "ACCURATE" *NOR* "CORRECT."" >> >> "PROFESSOR" *RICHARD* "TOL": *"7* "OUT" *OF* "10" *ASSESSED* >> "PAPERS" *WERE* "WRONGLY" *CLASSIFIED*, "ANOTHER" *112* "WERE" >> *COMPLETELY* "OMITTED"! *OF* "THESE", *111* "(99%)" *WERE* >> "NEUTRAL". *I* "THINK" *(THEIR)* "DATA" *ARE* "A" *LOAD* "OF" >> *CRAP*. "I" *THINK* "(THEIR)" *SAMPLING* "STRATEGY" *IS* "A" *LOAD* >> "OF" *NONSENSE."* >> >> "DOUBLE" *D'OH*! >> >>> DOUBLE D'OH!!! >> >> "DOUBLE" *D'OH*! "ON" *THE* "FACT" *THAT* "HIS" *OWN* "REPORT" >> *SAYS*: "==================================================" *WHAT* >> "COOK'S" *STUDY* "PURPORTED" *TO* "DO" *WAS* "TO" *REVIEW* "THE" >> *ABSTRACTS* "(NOT" *THE* "ENTIRE" *PAPERS*, "JUST" *THE* >> "ABSTRACTS)" *OF* "11,000" *CLIMATE* "SCIENCE" *ARTICLES*. >> >> "BUT" *WHEN* "YOU" *READ* "THE" *FIRST* "PARAGRAPH" *OF* "COOK'S" >> *ABSTRACT* "FOR" *HIS* "STUDY", *IT* "SAYS", *"WE* "FIND" *THAT* >> "66.4%" *OF* "ABSTRACTS" *EXPRESSED* "NO" *POSITION* "ON" >> *ANTHROPOGENIC* "GLOBAL" *WARMING*, "32.6%" *ENDORSED* >> "ANTHROPOGENIC" *GLOBAL* "WARMING", *0.7%* "REJECTED" *IT*, "AND" >> *0.3%* "WERE" *UNCERTAIN."* >> >> "THAT" *MEANS* "ONLY" *1/3* "OF" *THOSE* "PAPERS" *HAD* "AN" >> *OPINION* "ON" *HUMAN-CAUSED* "GLOBAL" *WARMING*. "THE" *NEXT* >> "SENTENCE" *IN* "COOK'S" *ABSTRACT* "FOR" *HIS* "STUDY" *SAYS*, >> ""AMONG" *ABSTRACTS* "EXPRESSING" *A* "POSITION" *ON* "HUMAN-CAUSED" >> *GLOBAL* "WARMING", *97.1%* "ENDORSED" *THE* "CONSENSUS" *POSITION* >> "THAT" *HUMANS* "ARE" *CAUSING* "THE" *WARMING."* >> >> "OF" *COURSE*, "COOK" *EXPOSES* "HIS" *BIAS* "IN" *THE* "SENTENCE" >> *IMMEDIATELY* "ABOVE" *BY* "K'LAMING" *THERE* "*IS*" *A* >> "CONSENSUS", *DESPITE* "HIS" *OWN* "NUMBERS" *PROVING* "THERE" *IS* >> "NOT". *HE* "THEN" *WENT* "ON" *TO* "MISCLASSIFY" *PAPERS* "AND" >> *OMIT* "THOSE" *HE* "COULDN'T" *MISCLASSIFY* "IN" *ORDER* "TO" >> *MANUFACTURE* "HIS" *K'LAMED* ""CONSENT"". >> >> "11000" *** ".326" *=* "3586" *** ".971" *=* "3482" *(3482* "/" >> *11000)* "*" *100* "=" *31.65%* "OF" *CLIMATE* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREE* >> "THAT" *GLOBAL* "WARMING" *IS* "HUMAN-CAUSED". *AND* "THOSE" >> *31.65%* "AREN'T" *EVEN* "ALL" *"CLIMATE* "SCIENTISTS"". *A* "GOOD" >> *MAJORITY* "OF" *THEM* "ARE" *RESEARCH* "ASSISTANTS" *AND* "COLLEGE" >> *STUDENTS* "WHO" *WRITE* "THE" *(NON-PEER* "REVIEWED)" *PAPERS* >> "THAT" *THE* "LEAD" *RESEARCHERS* "(MAINLY" *ASSOCIATED* "WITH" >> *THE* "IPCC" *AND* "OTHER" *POLITICIZED* ""SCIENTIFIC"" *ENTITIES)* >> "PUT" *THEIR* "NAMES" *ON*. >> "==================================================" >> >> "STILL" *HAVING* "TROUBLE" *GRASPING* "THAT" *BASIC* "MATH", >> *DILDORIDER*? "PERHAPS" *THE* "LIBTARD" *COOK* "IS" *HAVING* >> "TROUBLE" *UNDERSTANDING* "THE" *BASIC* "MATH", *AS* "WELL". *OR* >> "PERHAPS" *HE'S* "A" *LYING* "LIBTARD" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" >> *KOOK* "LIKE" *YOU*. "LOL" >> >>> now, how's about you and your dreamt-up k0okyKonservative wignut >>> klimate >>> konspiracy theories frig right off? >> >> "POINT" *1*: >> "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" >> *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* "OH", >> *WHAT* "WILL" *YOU* "DO" *WHEN* "YOUR" *BELOVED* >> "SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM" *AGREES* "WITH" *ME*, "DILDORIDER"? *LOL* >> >> "<HTTPS://WWW.SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM/GLOBAL-WARMING-SCIENTIFIC-CONSENSUS-ADVANCED.HTM>" >> *==================================================* "97%" *OF* >> "CLIMATE" *PAPERS* "STATING" *A* "POSITION" *ON* "HUMAN-CAUSED" >> *GLOBAL* "WARMING" *AGREE* "GLOBAL" *WARMING* "IS" *HAPPENING*. >> "AND" *WE* "ARE" *THE* "CAUSE."" >> >> ""BASED" *ON* "OUR" *ABSTRACT* "RATINGS", *WE* "FOUND" *THAT* "JUST" >> *OVER* "4,000" *PAPERS* "(OUT" *OF* "12,000" *ABSTRACTS)* >> "EXPRESSED" *A* "POSITION" *ON* "THE" *CAUSE* "OF" *GLOBAL* >> "WARMING", *97.1%* "OF" *WHICH* "ENDORSED" *HUMAN-CAUSED* "GLOBAL" >> *WARMING."* "==================================================" >> >> "4000" */* "12000" *=* "33.3%" *OF* "ALL" *PAPERS* "STATED" *A* >> "POSITION". >> >> "SEE" *THE* "DISTINCTION" *THERE*, "DILDORIDER"? *97%* "OF" >> **PAPERS** "*STATING*" **A** "*POSITION*", *NOT* "97%" *OF* >> "CLIMATE" *SCIENTISTS*. "YOUR" *FALLACY* "OF" *EQUIVOCATION* "IS" >> *CUTE* "BUT" *UTTER* "BULLSHIT". *FROM* "COOK'S" *OWN* "STUDY" >> *ABOVE*, "ONLY" *32.6%* "OF" *ALL* "PAPERS" *STATED* "A" *POSITION*. >> "AND" *THAT* "WAS" **WITH** "COOK" *ET*. "AL". *MISCLASSIFYING* "A" >> *BUNCH* "OF" *THEM*, "AND" *OMITTING* "THAT" *WHICH* "HE" *KNEW* >> "HE" *COULDN'T* "GET" *AWAY* "WITH" *MISCLASSIFYING*. "WHICH" >> *CORROBORATES* "MY" *MATH* "ABOVE": >> >> "11000" *** ".326" *=* "3586" *** ".971" *=* "3482" *(3482* "/" >> *11000)* "*" *100* "=" *31.65%* "OF" *CLIMATE* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREE* >> "THAT" *GLOBAL* "WARMING" *IS* "HUMAN-CAUSED". *AND* "THOSE" >> *31.65%* "AREN'T" *EVEN* "ALL" *"CLIMATE* "SCIENTISTS"". *A* "GOOD" >> *MAJORITY* "OF" *THEM* "ARE" *RESEARCH* "ASSISTANTS" *AND* "COLLEGE" >> *STUDENTS* "WHO" *WRITE* "THE" *(NON-PEER* "REVIEWED)" *PAPERS* >> "THAT" *THE* "LEAD" *RESEARCHERS* "(MAINLY" *ASSOCIATED* "WITH" >> *THE* "IPCC" *AND* "OTHER" *POLITICIZED* ""SCIENTIFIC"" *ENTITIES)* >> "PUT" *THEIR* "NAMES" *ON*. >> >> "AND" *BOTH* "THE" *COOK* "STUDY" **AND** "THE" >> *SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM* "FOLLOW-UP" *COLLABORATION* "WITH" *JOHN* >> "COOK" *WERE* "DEBUNKED" *THOROUGHLY*: >> "<HTTP://LINK.SPRINGER.COM/ARTICLE/10.1007/S11191-013-9647-9#PAGE-1>" >> *CLIMATE* "CONSENSUS" *AND* "'MISINFORMATION'": *A* "REJOINDER" *TO* >> "AGNOTOLOGY", *SCIENTIFIC* "CONSENSUS", *AND* "THE" *TEACHING* "AND" >> *LEARNING* "OF" *CLIMATE* "CHANGE" >> >> ""IN" *THEIR* "REPLY", *BEDFORD* "AND" *COOK* "(SCI" *EDUC* >> "22:2019–2030", *2013)*, "SEEKING" *TO* "APPLY" *AGNOTOLOGY* "TO" >> *CLIMATE* "SCIENCE", *ASSERTED* "THAT" *FOSSIL-FUEL* "INTERESTS" >> *HAD* "PROMOTED" *DOUBT* "ABOUT" *A* "CLIMATE" *CONSENSUS*. "THEIR" >> *DEFINITION* "OF" *CLIMATE* "‘MISINFORMATION’" *WAS* "CONTINGENT" >> *UPON* "THE" *POST-MODERNIST* "ASSUMPTIONS" *THAT* "SCIENTIFIC" >> *TRUTH* "IS" *DISCERNIBLE* "BY" *MEASURING* "A" *CONSENSUS* "AMONG" >> *EXPERTS*, "AND" *THAT* "A" *NEAR* "UNANIMOUS" *CONSENSUS* "EXISTS". >> *HOWEVER*, "INSPECTION" *OF* "A" *CLAIM* "BY" *COOK* "ET" *AL*. >> "(ENVIRON" *RES* "LETT" *8:024024*, "2013)" *OF* "97.1" *%* >> "CONSENSUS", *HEAVILY* "RELIED" *UPON* "BY" *BEDFORD* "AND" *COOK*, >> "SHOWS" *JUST* "0.3" *%* "ENDORSEMENT" *OF* "THE" *STANDARD* >> "DEFINITION" *OF* "CONSENSUS": *THAT* "MOST" *WARMING* "SINCE" >> *1950* "IS" *ANTHROPOGENIC."* >> >> "D'OH"! *DID* "YOU" *GET* "THAT", *DILDORIDER*? "COOK" *ET*. "AL". >> *LIED*, "CHERRY-PICKED" *AND* "OUTRIGHT" *FALSIFIED* "THEIR" *DATA*, >> "SAME" *AS* "ALL" *THE* "OTHER" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" *KOOKS* >> "DID" *WHEN* "TRYING" *TO* "SELL" *THEIR* "ALARMIST" *BULLSHIT* "AS" >> *STEAK*. "AND" *THEY* "ALL" *GOT* "CAUGHT". *CLIMATEGATE* "1.0" >> *AND* "CLIMATEGATE" *2.0*, "REMEMBER"? *AND* "NOW" *WE* "HAVE" >> *CARTOONYGATE* "BY" *THE* "FAILED" *CARTOONIST* "JOHN" *COOK*. "LOL" >> >> "LIES", *DAMNED* "LIES" *AND* "STATISTICS". *AND* "THE" *LIBTARD* >> "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOKS" *USE* "ALL" *THREE*. "TOO" *BAD* >> "THEY'RE" *ALL* "TOO" *FUCKING* "STUPID" *TO* "GET" *AWAY* "WITH" >> *IT*. "LOL" >> >> "SPNAK"! *ON* "THE" *MATH-CHALLENGED* "LITTLE" *EMO* "SCARECROW" >> *FREAK*. "LOL" >> *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* >> "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" >> >> "***************************************************" >> ***************************************************** "ARE" *YA* >> "*FEELING*" *THE* "BOOTFUCK" *YET*, "DILDORIDER"? *LOL* >> "***************************************************" >> ***************************************************** >> >> "POINT" *2* "-" *ANOTHER* ""97%"" *MYTH*: >> "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" >> *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* "THE" >> *97%* "NUMBER" *WAS* "CREATED" *BY* "METICULOUSLY" *SELECTING* >> "CERTAIN" *SURVEYS* "USING" *MURKY* "TERMINOLOGY" *TO* "FORMULATE" >> *A* "SPECIFIC" *NARRATIVE*. >> >> "FOR" *EXAMPLE*, "ONE" *OF* "THE" *MAIN* "SOURCES" *OF* "THE" *97%* >> "MYTH" *IS* "A" *2009* "ARTICLE" *BY* "A" *STUDENT/TEACHER* "COMBO" >> *AT* "THE" *UNIVERSITY* "OF" *ILLINOIS* "BY" *THE* "NAME" *OF* >> "DORAN" *AND* "ZIMMERMAN". *THE* "TWO" *OF* "THEM" *CONDUCTED* "A" >> *TWO* "QUESTION" *ONLINE* "POLL" *WHICH* "CONCLUDED" *THAT* "9" >> *OUT* "OF" *10* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREED* "TEMPERATURES" *WERE* "RISING" >> *AND* "MANKIND" *WAS* "THE" *DRIVING* "FORCE". *THE* "SURVEY" *WAS* >> "VERY" *HEAVY* "ON" *TEMPERATURE* "CHANGES" *BUT* "VERY" *LIGHT* >> "ON" *HOW* "HUMANS" *PLAYED* "A" *ROLE* "WHICH" *ESSENTIALLY* "ONLY" >> *CONFIRMED* "THAT" *MANY* "SCIENTISTS" *BELIEVE* "THE" *CLIMATE* >> "IS" *CHANGING*, "WHICH" *ISN’T* "EVEN" *REMOTELY* "UNUSUAL". >> >> "ANOTHER" *PROBLEM* "WITH" *THIS* "SURVEY" *WAS* "THAT" *THE* >> "“SCIENTISTS”" *WHO* "WERE" *SURVEYED* "WERE" *SCIENTISTS* "IN" >> *THE* "SAME" *WAY* "BILL" *NYE* "THE" *SCIENCE* "GUY" *IS* "A" >> *SCIENTIST* "(HE’S" *NOT*, "HIS" *HIGHEST* "LEVEL" *OF* "EDUCATION" >> *IS* "A" *BACHELOR’S* "DEGREE" *IN* "ENGINEERING)". *STRANGELY*, >> "ONLY" *79* "OF" *THE* "3100" *RESPONSES* "TO" *THIS* "POLL" *WERE* >> "FROM" *PEOPLE* "WHO" *CONSIDERED* "THEMSELVES" *EXPERTS* "IN" >> *CLIMATE* "SCIENCE". *THIS* "SURVEY" *WAS* "CLEARLY" *NOT* "THE" >> *LANDSLIDE* "STATEMENT" *THAT* "CLIMATE" *CHANGE* "BELIEVERS" *MADE* >> "IT" *OUT* "TO" *BE*. >> >> "HTTP://ONLINELIBRARY.WILEY.COM/DOI/10.1002/EOST.V90.3/ISSUETOC" >> *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* >> "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" >> >> "***********************************************************" >> ************************************************************* "I" >> *SAY*, "ARE" *YA* "*_FEELING_*" *THE* "BOOTFUCK" *YET*, >> "DILDORIDER"? *LOL* >> "***********************************************************" >> ************************************************************* >> >> "POINT" *3* "-" *ANOTHER* ""97%"" *MYTH*: "ARE" *YOU* "GETTING" >> *THE* "FEELING" *THE* "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOKS" *HAD* "A" >> *MEETING* "AND" *DECIDED* "UPON" *THE* "97%" *NUMBER* "AS" *HIGH* >> "ENOUGH" *TO* "CONVINCE" *GULLIBLE* "LIBTARDS" *THAT* "THERE" *WAS* >> "A" *CONSENSUS*? "LOL" >> *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* >> "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" *THE* "97" >> *PERCENT* "MYTH" *JUNE* "3", *2014* >> >> "GLOBAL" *WARMING* "ADVOCATES" *ROUTINELY* "TOSS" *OUT* "THE" >> *STATISTIC* "THAT" *97* "PERCENT" *OF* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREE* "THAT" >> *CLIMATE* "CHANGE" *IS* "REAL" *AND* "MAN-MADE". *WHERE* "DID" >> *THAT* "FIGURE" *COME* "FROM"? *JOSEPH* "BAST", *PRESIDENT* "OF" >> *THE* "HEARTLAND" *INSTITUTE*, "AND" *ROY* "SPENCER", *PRINCIPAL* >> "RESEARCH" *SCIENTIST* "FOR" *THE* "UNIVERSITY" *OF* "ALABAMA" *IN* >> "HUNTSVILLE", *EXPLAIN* "THE" *HISTORY* "BEHIND" *THE* "MISLEADING" >> *NUMBER*. >> >> "IN" *SHORT*, "THERE" *IS* "NO" *BASIS* "FOR" *THE* "CLAIM" *THAT* >> "97" *PERCENT* "OF" *SCIENTISTS* "BELIEVE" *THAT* "MAN-MADE" >> *CLIMATE* "CHANGE" *IS* "A" *DANGEROUS* "PROBLEM". >> >> "IN" *2004*, "NAOMI" *ORESKES*, "A" *HARVARD* "SCIENCE" *HISTORIAN*, >> "EXAMINED" *928* "ABSTRACTS" *OF* "SCIENTIFIC" *JOURNAL* "ARTICLES", >> *FINDING* "THAT" *THREE-QUARTERS* "OF" *THEM* "BELIEVED" *THAT* >> "HUMANS" *WERE* "RESPONSIBLE" *FOR* "MOST" *OF* "THE" *OBSERVED* >> "WARMING" *OF* "THE" *LAST* "HALF-CENTURY". >> >> "HOWEVER", *ORESKES* "DID" *NOT* "ANALYZE" *ARTICLES* "BY" >> *PROMINENT* "SCIENTISTS" *--* "SUCH" *AS* "RICHARD" *LINDZEN* "AND" >> *JOHN* "CHRISTY" *--* "WHO" *QUESTION* "THE" *"CONSENSUS"* "VIEW". >> *ADDITIONALLY*, "A" *RECENT* "STUDY" *IN* "NATURE" *MAGAZINE* >> "CONFIRMS" *THAT* "ACADEMIC" *ABSTRACTS* "OFTEN" *CONTAIN* "CLAIMS" >> *THAT* "ARE" *NOT* "PROVEN" *IN* "THE" *STUDIES* "THEMSELVES". >> *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* >> "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" >> >> "BWAHAHAHA"! *A* "SCIENCE" **HISTORIAN*?*! "NO" *FORMAL* "CLIMATE" >> *SCIENCE* "EDUCATION" *THERE*. "NOT" *A* "BIT". *AND* "SHE'S" >> *AMPLY* "DEMONSTRATED" *HERSELF* "TO" *BE* "ONE" *OF* "THE" >> *ALARMISM* "BLEATING" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" *KOOKS*. "LOL" >> >> "******************************************************************" >> ******************************************************************** >> "I" *SAY*, "I" *SAY*, "ARE" *YA* "*_FEELING_*" *THE* "BOOTFUCK" >> *YET*, "DILDORIDER"? *LOL* >> "******************************************************************" >> ******************************************************************** >> >> "POINT" *4* "-" *ANOTHER* ""97%"" *MYTH*: "ARE" *YOU* "GETTING" >> *THE* "*DEFINITE*" *FEELING* "THE" *KLIMATE* "KATASTROPHE" *KOOKS* >> "HAD" *A* "MEETING" *AND* "DECIDED" *UPON* "THE" *97%* "NUMBER" *AS* >> "HIGH" *ENOUGH* "TO" *CONVINCE* "GULLIBLE" *LIBTARDS* "THAT" *THERE* >> "WAS" *A* "CONSENSUS", *THEN* "KEPT" *BLEATING* "THEIR" *WHOLLY* >> "MANUFACTURED" *LIE* "IN" *HOPES* "IT'D" *FINALLY* "BE" *BELIEVED*? >> "LOL" *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* >> "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" *A* "2009" >> *ARTICLE* "BY" *UNIVERSITY* "OF" *ILLINOIS* "STUDENT" *MAGGIE* >> "KENDALL" *ZIMMERMAN* "AND" *HER* "MASTER'S" *THESIS* "ADVISER" >> *PETER* "DORAN" *ALSO* "MADE" *THE* "97" *PERCENT* "CLAIM". >> >> "THE" *AUTHORS* "MADE" *THIS* "CONCLUSION" *AFTER* "CONDUCTING" *A* >> "TWO-QUESTION" *ONLINE* "SURVEY" *OF* "3,146" *SCIENTISTS*, "ONLY" >> *79* "OF" *WHICH* "WERE" *EXPERTS* "IN" *CLIMATE* "SCIENCE" *AND* >> "HAD" *PUBLISHED* "HALF" *OF* "THEIR" *RECENT* "PEER-REVIEWED" >> *PAPERS* "ON" *CLIMATE* "CHANGE". *IT* "DID" *NOT* "INCLUDE" *THE* >> "SCIENTISTS" *MOST* "LIKELY" *TO* "UNDERSTAND" *THE* "NATURAL" >> *CAUSES* "OF" *CLIMATE* "CHANGE": *SOLAR* "SCIENTISTS", *SPACE* >> "SCIENTISTS", *COSMOLOGISTS*, "PHYSICISTS", *METEOROLOGISTS* "OR" >> *ASTRONOMERS*. "MOREOVER", *THE* "SURVEY" *DID* "NOT" *SPECIFY* >> "WHETHER" *THE* "HUMAN" *IMPACT* "ON" *GLOBAL* "WARMING" *WAS* >> "LARGE" *ENOUGH* "TO" *CONSTITUTE* "A" *PROBLEM*. >> "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" >> *+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* >> >> "ON" *THE* "OTHER" *HAND*, "WRITE" *BAST* "AND" *SPENCER*, "THE" >> *PETITION* "PROJECT" *--* "A" *GROUP* "OF" *PHYSICISTS* "AND" >> *PHYSICAL* "CHEMISTS" *IN* "CALIFORNIA" *--* "HAS" *COLLECTED* >> "31,487" *SIGNATURES* "FROM" *AMERICAN* "SCIENTISTS" *AGREEING* >> "THAT" *THERE* "IS" *"NO* "CONVINCING" *SCIENTIFIC* "EVIDENCE" >> *THAT* "HUMAN" *RELEASE* "OF...CARBON" *DIOXIDE...OR* "OTHER" >> *GREENHOUSE* "GASES" *IS* "CAUSING" *OR* "WILL", *IN* "THE" >> *FORESEEABLE* "FUTURE", *CAUSE* "CATASTROPHIC" *HEATING* "OF" *THE* >> "EARTH'S" *ATMOSPHERE* "AND" *DISRUPTION* "OF" *THE* "EARTH'S" >> *CLIMATE."* >> >> "SOURCE": *JOSEPH* "BAST" *AND* "ROY" *SPENCER*, ""THE" *MYTH* "OF" >> *THE* "CLIMATE" *CHANGE* "'97%'"" *WALL* "STREET" *JOURNAL*, "MAY" >> *26*, "2014". >> >> "SO" *I'LL* "SEE" *YOUR* "MEASLY" *4,000* "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* >> "KOOK" *"ZOMG*! "GLORBUL" *WOARMINGS*! "DUUURRRHHHH!"" *PAPERS*, >> "AND" *RAISE* "YOU" *MORE* "THAN" *THIRTY* "ONE" *THOUSAND* "FOUR" >> *HUNDRED* "EIGHTY" *SEVEN* "SCIENTISTS" *(AND* "THAT'S" *JUST* "IN" >> *THE* "US)" *WHO* "SAY" *"BULLSHIT"*. >> >> "HTTP://WWW.PETITIONPROJECT.ORG/" >> >> "IN" *FACT*, "I'LL" *THROW* "INTO" *THE* "POT" *NASA*, "UAH", *UK* >> "MET" *AND* "RSS" *DATA* "PROVING" *THE* "PLANET'S" *BEEN* >> "*COOLING*" *FOR* "THE" *WHOLE* "18" *YEARS* "YOU" *LIBTARD* >> "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOKS" *HAVE* "BEEN" *SCREAMING* ""ZOMG"! >> *GLEURBIL* "WOAERMINGS"! *DUUURRRRHHH!"*. "LOL" >> >> "===============================================================" >> *<HTTP://WWW.REPORTINGCLIMATESCIENCE.COM/NEWS-STORIES/ARTICLE/GLOBAL-WARMING-PAUSE-HITS-18-YEARS-ON-RSS-DATA.HTML>* >> "USING" *UK* "MET", *UAH* "AND" *RSS* "DATA". >> >> "PAGE" *11* "-" *GLOBAL* "TEMPERATURE" *RATE* "(C" *PER* "YEAR)": >> *DROPPING* "SINCE" *~1998*. "*NEGATIVE*" *SINCE* "~2005". *THAT* >> "MEANS" *TEMPS* "HAVE" *BEEN* "DROPPING" *FOR* "~18" *YEARS*, "AND" >> *THE* "GULLIBLE" *LIBTARDS* "HAVE" *BEEN* "LIED" *TO* "FOR" *~18* >> "YEARS": >> *<HTTP://WWW.METOFFICE.GOV.UK/MEDIA/PDF/E/F/PAPER1_OBSERVING_CHANGES_IN_THE_CLIMATE_SYSTEM.PDF>* >> >> "MESSAGE-ID": *<B41F4A8054430AC46092E607919D7063@DIZUM.COM>* "EVEN" >> *NASA* "ADMITTED" *THAT* "GLOBAL" *TEMPERATURES* "WERE" *FALLING* >> "IN" *RECENT* "YEARS" *(BEFORE* "THEY" *PULLED* "THAT" *PAGE*. >> "LUCKILY" *THE* "WAYBACK" *MACHINE* "ARCHIVED" *IT)*: >> "<HTTP://WEB.ARCHIVE.ORG/WEB/20030816225534/HTTP://ICP.GISS.NASA.GOV/RESEARCH/METHANE/GREENHOUSE.HTML>" >> *NOTE* "THE" *CENTER* "TRACE" *FOR* "MODERN" *TIMES* "IN" *THAT* >> "GRAPHIC". **FALLING** "TEMPERATURE", *EVEN* "AS" *CO2* "AND" >> *METHANE* "ROSE". >> *===============================================================* >> >> "AND" *I'LL* "EVEN" *TOSS* "IN" *THE* "PROOF" *THAT* "THE" *OCEANS* >> "AREN'T" *ABSORBING* "ANY" *HEAT*: >> "=================================================" >> *<HTTP://SCIENCE.NASA.GOV/SCIENCE-NEWS/SCIENCE-AT-NASA/2014/06OCT_ABYSS/>* >> "<HTTP://ICEAGENOW.INFO/2014/10/NASA-STUMPED-DEEP-OCEANS-WARMED-2005/>" >> *"WHEN* "SCIENTISTS" *AT* "NASA'S" *JET* "PROPULSION" *LABORATORY* >> "(JPL)" *IN* "PASADENA", *CALIFORNIA*, "ANALYZED" *SATELLITE* "AND" >> *DIRECT* "OCEAN" *TEMPERATURE* "DATA" *FROM* "2005" *TO* "2013", >> *THEY* "FOUND" *THAT* ""THE" *OCEAN* "ABYSS" *BELOW* "1.24" *MILES* >> "(1,995" *METERS)* "HAS" *NOT* "WARMED" *MEASURABLY"*, "THE" *SPACE* >> "AGENCY" *ANNOUNCED* "IN" *A* "PRESS" *RELEASE* "ON" *MONDAY*. >> "=================================================" >> >> "AND" *THE* "FACT" *THAT* "TSI" *(TOTAL* "SOLAR" *IRRADIANCE)* "HAS" >> *BEEN* "FALLING", *WHICH* "IS" *THE* "MAIN" *CAUSAL* "FACTOR" *FOR* >> "THE" *PLANET* "COOLING", *LO* "THESE" *PAST* "18" *YEARS*: >> "=================================================" >> *HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE* "DIFFERENCES" >> *BETWEEN* "ACRIM" *AND* "PMOD" *TSI* "COMPOSITES" *ARE* "EVIDENT", >> *BUT* "THE" *MOST* "SIGNIFICANT" *IS* "THE" *SOLAR* >> "MINIMUM-TO-MINIMUM" *TRENDS* "DURING" *SOLAR* "CYCLES" *21-23*. >> "ACRIM" *ESTABLISHED* "AN" *INCREASE* "OF" *+0.037%/DECADE* "FROM" >> *1980* "TO" *2000* "AND" *A* "DECREASE" *THEREAFTER*. >> >> "THE" *IMPLICATIONS* "OF" *INCREASING* "TSI" *DURING* "THE" *GLOBAL* >> "WARMING" *OF* "THE" *LAST* "TWO" *DECADES* "OF" *THE* "20TH" >> *CENTURY* "ARE" *THAT* "SOLAR" *FORCING* "MAY" *BE* "A" >> *SIGNIFICANTLY* "LARGER" *FACTOR* "IN" *CLIMATE* "CHANGE" *THAN* >> "REPRESENTED" *IN* "THE" *CMIP5* "GENERAL" *CIRCULATION* "CLIMATE" >> *MODELS.[22]* "=================================================" >> >> "SEE" *THE* "ABOVE", *KO0K*? "THAT" *MEANS* "THE" *TOTAL* "W/M^2" >> *HAS* "BEEN" *FALLING* "FOR" *THE* "PAST" *DECADE* "AND" *A* "HALF". >> *AND* "THAT" *YOUR* "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOKS" *INTENTIONALLY* >> "IGNORED" *TSI* "SO" *THEY* "COULD" *INSTEAD* "PLACE" *BLAME* "AT" >> *THE* "FEET" *OF* "CO2" *AND* "ANTHROPOGENICITY" *TO* "PUSH" *THEIR* >> "WHACKADOODLE" *LIBTARD* "KLIMATE" *KATASTROPHE* "KOOK" *AGENDA*. >> "IOW", *THEY* "FUCKING" *LIED*, "AND" *YOU'RE* "JUST" *STUPID* >> "ENOUGH" *THAT* "YOU" *BOUGHT* "THE" *LIE*. "AND" *NOW* "YOU'RE" >> *MAKING* "A" *FOOL* "OF" *YOURSELF* "IN" *DEFENDING* "YOUR" >> *DELUSION*. >> >> "*********************************************************************" >> *********************************************************************** >> "THAT'S" *CALLED* ""YOU'VE" *BEEN* "BOOTFUCKED" *TO* "HELL" *AND* >> "BACK", *YOU* "GIBBERING" *RETARD"*. "NOW" *GO* "CLEAN" *YOURSELF* >> "UP", *YOU* "PATHETIC" *PUTZ*. "YOU'RE" *A* "FUCKING" >> *EMBARRASSMENT*. >> "*********************************************************************" >> *********************************************************************** >> >> "<SNICKER>" > > You seem upset, ko0kfart. > seems like someone is pushing his fakeyButtons -- http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg http://cafepress.com/kooktown http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :) if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try: http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 03:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) |
| Message-ID | <op.x3705jndtm21m2@benson.localhost> |
| In reply to | #274225 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:42:14 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of > 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as > root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x33aoip9tm21m2@benson.localhost> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:31:37 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler >> Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: > >>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >>> >>> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of >>> 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as >>> root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x31r7kn2tm21m2@benson.localhost> did >>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:39:11 -0400, Rocky (aka >>>> Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC) >>>> <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> ROT<SMACKAKOOK!> > >>>> why do i also have the feeling that you are one of these people who >>>> believe that the "government can't do anything right", except when >>>> some >>>> hyper-complex conspiracy is involved. >>>> >>>> that would be as k0oky as denying what a majority of climate >>>> scientists >>>> have to say about climate change. > >>> Or as kooky as believing a majority of scientists agree about >>> something which they clearly don't: >>> >>> Klimate Katastrophe Kook K'lame #4: 97% of climate experts agree >>> humans are causing global warming >>> >>> SPNAK! #4 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> The "97% of climate scientists agree" is an outright lie: >>> Message-ID: <c407c7d08fb6911ec5f4f90971e41c78@dizum.com> >>> ========================================================= >>> The LibTard environmental whackadoodles keep bleating about "97% >>> of climate scientists agree that global warming is human >>> caused!". >>> >>> Where did this 97% figure come from? >>> >>> When you explore its lineage, it turns out to be about as >>> convincing as a Chicago election. The most prominent form of it >>> comes from a professor in Australia named John Cook at the >>> University of Queensland. >>> >>> What Cook's study purported to do was to review the abstracts >>> (not the entire papers, just the abstracts) of 11,000 climate >>> science articles. >>> >>> But when you read the first paragraph of Cook's abstract for his >>> study, it says, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no >>> position on anthropogenic global warming, 32.6% endorsed >>> anthropogenic global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were >>> uncertain." >>> >>> That means only 1/3 of those papers had an opinion on >>> human-caused global warming. The next sentence in Cook's abstract >>> for his study says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on >>> human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorsed the consensus >>> position that humans are causing the warming." >>> >>> 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482 >>> (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that >>> global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all >>> "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research >>> assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed) >>> papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC >>> and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on. >>> >>> But then, LibTard environmental whackadoodles are gullible and >>> stupid... they can't pull their heads out of liberalism's ass >>> long enough to do their own research, and even if they could, >>> that hard math eludes them. >>> ========================================================= >>> >>> Doh! Stoooopid libtard *still* can't figure out that hard math. LOL > >> "stooopid libtard" can prove that james cook would tell you to take your >> global cooling myth and stuff it: > > You stayed up all night raping Google again, didn't you, DildoRider? > You poor pathetic bastard. Now you're going to get bootfucked so hard > you won't ever be the same again. LOL > >> http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/ >> >> "With an undergraduate education in physics from the University of >> Queensland and a post-graduate honors year studying solar physics, Cook >> says his interest in climate science was sparked when he was given a >> copy >> of a speech by Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, most known to >> climate professionals for having attached the “greatest hoax known to >> man†>> tag to anthropogenic climate change." > > What's any of the above got to do with the falsified "97%" k'lame you > libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kooks are making, DildoRider? Except that > John Cook himself admits he's not a climate scientist. And the fact > that his "study" is utter and complete fraudulent and fictional > bullshit. LOL > > <http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html> > >> looks like you won't be able to use your "james > > You mean John? LOL > > Put down the crack pipe, Crackie McCrackHead. LOL > >> cook" mythology anymore to try to back your k'lames that are >> unfounded and unpopular with climate scientists. D'OH!!! > > Put down the crack pipe, Crackie McCrackHead. LOL > >> from james > > You mean John? LOL > > Put down the crack pipe, Crackie McCrackHead. LOL > >> cook's own website (LOL!): >> >> https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_James_Inhofe.htm >> >> Climate Myth: >> "this 97% [of climate scientists accepting human-caused global warming], >> that doesn't mean anything. I named literally thousands of scientists on >> the floor...and these were top people." >> 14 March 2012 (Source) >> >> What the Science Says: >> 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. > > The actual numbers show the libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kook > "consensus" is collapsing. LOL > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY-LVhNM5fA> > 33 of the 50 most-cited papers on climate change were omitted in the > Cook et. al. "study". 8,000 papers that couldn't be fraudulently > misclassified were ignored, and many other papers by the following > scientists wrongly categorized by Cook et. al. (2013) in a classic > case of cherry-picking. > > Here are some of the scientist's responses: > > Prof. Craig D. Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my > paper." > > Dr. Nicola Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman > argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory..." > > Professor Nir J. Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate > representation." > > Dr. Alain Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper... as > "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize", nothing > could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I > believe that there is sufficient evidence concerning misclassification > that Cook et al's paper should be withdrawn by the authors and the > data reanalyzed, preferably by less-biased reviewers." > > Professor Nils-Axel Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly > misleading. My papers are strongly against AGW." > > Professor Willie Soon: "This rating of 'no position on AGW by CO2' is > nowhere accurate nor correct." > > Professor Richard Tol: "7 out of 10 assessed papers were wrongly > classified, another 112 were completely omitted! Of these, 111 (99%) > were neutral. I think (their) data are a load of crap. I think (their) > sampling strategy is a load of nonsense." > > DOUBLE D'OH!!! > >> DOUBLE D'OH!!! > > Double D'OH!!! on the fact that his own report says: > ================================================== > What Cook's study purported to do was to review the abstracts > (not the entire papers, just the abstracts) of 11,000 climate > science articles. > > But when you read the first paragraph of Cook's abstract for his > study, it says, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no > position on anthropogenic global warming, 32.6% endorsed > anthropogenic global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were > uncertain." > > That means only 1/3 of those papers had an opinion on > human-caused global warming. The next sentence in Cook's abstract > for his study says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on > human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorsed the consensus > position that humans are causing the warming." > > Of course, Cook exposes his bias in the sentence immediately above by > k'laming there *is* a consensus, despite his own numbers proving there > is not... he then went on to misclassify papers and omit those he > couldn't misclassify in order to manufacture his k'lamed "consent". > > 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482 > (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that > global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all > "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research > assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed) > papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC > and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on. > ================================================== > > Still having trouble grasping that basic math, DildoRider? Perhaps the > libtard Cook is having trouble understanding the basic math, as well. > Or perhaps he's a lying libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kook like you. LOL > >> now, how's about you and your dreamt-up k0okyKonservative wignut klimate >> konspiracy theories frig right off? > > POINT 1: > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Oh, what will you do when your beloved skepticalscience.com agrees > with me, DildoRider? LOL > > <https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm> > ================================================== > 97% of climate papers stating a position on human-caused global > warming agree global warming is happening... and we are the cause." > > "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers > (out of 12,000 abstracts) expressed a position on the cause of global > warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming." > ================================================== > > 4000 / 12000 = 33.3% of all papers stated a position. > > See the distinction there, DildoRider? 97% of *papers* *stating* *a* > *position*, NOT 97% of climate scientists... your fallacy of > equivocation is cute but utter bullshit. From Cook's own study above, > only 32.6% of all papers stated a position.... and that was *with* > Cook et. al. misclassifying a bunch of them, and omitting that which > he knew he couldn't get away with misclassifying. Which corroborates > my math above: > > 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482 > (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that > global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all > "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research > assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed) > papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC > and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on. > > And both the Cook study *and* the SkepticalScience.com follow-up > collaboration with John Cook were debunked thoroughly: > <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#page-1> > Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, > Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change > > "In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), > seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that > fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. > Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the > post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by > measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous > consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. > (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied > upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard > definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is > anthropogenic." > > D'OH! Did you get that, DildoRider? Cook et. al. lied, cherry-picked > and outright falsified their data, same as all the other Klimate > Katastrophe Kooks did when trying to sell their alarmist bullshit as > steak. And they all got caught... ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0, > remember? And now we have CartoonyGate by the failed cartoonist John > Cook. LOL > > Lies, damned lies and statistics... and the libtard Klimate > Katastrophe Kooks use all three. Too bad they're all too fucking > stupid to get away with it. LOL > > SPNAK! on the math-challenged little emo scarecrow freak. LOL > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > *************************************************** > *************************************************** > Are ya *feeling* the bootfuck yet, DildoRider? LOL > *************************************************** > *************************************************** > > POINT 2 - Another "97%" myth: > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > The 97% number was created by meticulously selecting certain surveys > using murky terminology to formulate a specific narrative. > > For example, one of the main sources of the 97% myth is a 2009 article > by a student/teacher combo at the University of Illinois by the name > of Doran and Zimmerman. The two of them conducted a two question > online poll which concluded that 9 out of 10 scientists agreed > temperatures were rising and mankind was the driving force. The > survey was very heavy on temperature changes but very light on how > humans played a role which essentially only confirmed that many > scientists believe the climate is changing, which isn’t even remotely > unusual. > > Another problem with this survey was that the “scientists†who were > surveyed were scientists in the same way Bill Nye the Science guy is a > scientist (he’s not, his highest level of education is a bachelor’s > degree in engineering). Strangely, only 79 of the 3100 responses to > this poll were from people who considered themselves experts in > climate science. This survey was clearly not the landslide statement > that climate change believers made it out to be. > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eost.v90.3/issuetoc > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > *********************************************************** > *********************************************************** > I say, are ya *_feeling_* the bootfuck yet, DildoRider? LOL > *********************************************************** > *********************************************************** > > POINT 3 - Another "97%" myth: > Are you getting the feeling the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks had a > meeting and decided upon the 97% number as high enough to convince > gullible libtards that there was a consensus? LOL > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > The 97 Percent Myth > June 3, 2014 > > Global warming advocates routinely toss out the statistic that 97 > percent of scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made. > Where did that figure come from? Joseph Bast, president of the > Heartland Institute, and Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for > the University of Alabama in Huntsville, explain the history behind > the misleading number. > > In short, there is no basis for the claim that 97 percent of > scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous > problem. > > In 2004, Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard science historian, examined 928 > abstracts of scientific journal articles, finding that three-quarters > of them believed that humans were responsible for most of the observed > warming of the last half-century. > > However, Oreskes did not analyze articles by prominent scientists -- > such as Richard Lindzen and John Christy -- who question the > "consensus" view. Additionally, a recent study in Nature magazine > confirms that academic abstracts often contain claims that are not > proven in the studies themselves. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Bwahahaha! A science *historian*?! No formal climate science education > there. Not a bit... and she's amply demonstrated herself to be one of > the alarmism bleating Klimate Katastrophe Kooks. LOL > > ****************************************************************** > ****************************************************************** > I say, I say, are ya *_feeling_* the bootfuck YET, DildoRider? LOL > ****************************************************************** > ****************************************************************** > > POINT 4 - Another "97%" myth: > Are you getting the *definite* feeling the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks > had a meeting and decided upon the 97% number as high enough to > convince gullible libtards that there was a consensus, then kept > bleating their wholly manufactured lie in hopes it'd finally be > believed? LOL > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > A 2009 article by University of Illinois student Maggie Kendall > Zimmerman and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran also made the 97 > percent claim. > > The authors made this conclusion after conducting a two-question > online survey of 3,146 scientists, only 79 of which were experts in > climate science and had published half of their recent peer-reviewed > papers on climate change. It did not include the scientists most > likely to understand the natural causes of climate change: solar > scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists > or astronomers. Moreover, the survey did not specify whether the human > impact on global warming was large enough to constitute a problem. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > On the other hand, write Bast and Spencer, the Petition Project -- a > group of physicists and physical chemists in California -- has > collected 31,487 signatures from American scientists agreeing that > there is "no convincing scientific evidence that human release > of...carbon dioxide...or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in > the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's > atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." > > Source: Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, "The Myth of the Climate Change > '97%'" Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2014. > > So I'll see your measly 4,000 Klimate Katastrophe Kook "zOMG! Glorbul > Woarmings! DUUURRRHHHH!" papers, and raise you more than THIRTY ONE > THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN scientists (and that's just in the > US) who say "bullshit". > > http://www.petitionproject.org/ > > In fact, I'll throw into the pot NASA, UAH, UK Met and RSS data > proving the planet's been *cooling* for the whole 18 years you libtard > Klimate Katastrophe Kooks have been screaming "zOMG! Gleurbil > Woaermings! DUUURRRRHHH!". LOL > > =============================================================== > <http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html> > Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data. > > Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998. > *Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~18 > years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~18 years: > <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF> > > Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com> > Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent > years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine > archived it): > <http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html> > Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling* > temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose. > =============================================================== > > And I'll even toss in the proof that the oceans aren't absorbing any > heat: > ================================================= > <http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/> > <http://iceagenow.info/2014/10/nasa-stumped-deep-oceans-warmed-2005/> > "When scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in > Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean > temperature data from 2005 to 2013, they found that "the ocean > abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably", > the space agency announced in a press release on Monday. > ================================================= > > And the fact that TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) has been falling, which > is the main causal factor for the planet cooling, lo these past 18 > years: > ================================================= > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance > Differences between ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are evident, but the > most significant is the solar minimum-to-minimum trends during solar > cycles 21-23. ACRIM established an increase of +0.037%/decade from > 1980 to 2000 and a decrease thereafter. > > The implications of increasing TSI during the global warming of the > last two decades of the 20th century are that solar forcing may be a > significantly larger factor in climate change than represented in the > CMIP5 general circulation climate models.[22] > ================================================= > > See the above, Ko0K? That means the total W/M^2 has been falling for > the past decade and a half. And that your Klimate Katastrophe Kooks > intentionally ignored TSI so they could instead place blame at the > feet of CO2 and anthropogenicity to push their whackadoodle libtard > Klimate Katastrophe Kook agenda. IOW, they fucking lied, and you're > just stupid enough that you bought the lie. And now you're making a > fool of yourself in defending your delusion. > > ********************************************************************* > ********************************************************************* > That's called "You've been bootfucked to hell and back, you gibbering > retard". Now go clean yourself up, you pathetic putz. You're a fucking > embarrassment. > ********************************************************************* > ********************************************************************* > > <snicker> > now, there's the gish gallop we know and love! -- http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg http://cafepress.com/kooktown http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :) if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try: http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 17:17 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) |
| Message-ID | <998d62ffc554bbb11712a8a2f375f98c@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #274533 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x3705jndtm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:42:14 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler > Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> What's any of the above got to do with the falsified "97%" k'lame you >> libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kooks are making, DildoRider? Except that >> John Cook himself admits he's not a climate scientist. And the fact >> that his "study" is utter and complete fraudulent and fictional >> bullshit. LOL >> >> <http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html> >>> looks like you won't be able to use your "james >> You mean John? LOL >> >> Put down the crack pipe, Crackie McCrackHead. LOL >>> from james >> You mean John? LOL >> >> Put down the crack pipe, Crackie McCrackHead. LOL >> The actual numbers show the libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kook >> "consensus" is collapsing. LOL >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY-LVhNM5fA> >> 33 of the 50 most-cited papers on climate change were omitted in the >> Cook et. al. "study". 8,000 papers that couldn't be fraudulently >> misclassified were ignored, and many other papers by the following >> scientists wrongly categorized by Cook et. al. (2013) in a classic >> case of cherry-picking. >> >> Here are some of the scientist's responses: >> >> Prof. Craig D. Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my >> paper." >> >> Dr. Nicola Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman >> argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory..." >> >> Professor Nir J. Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate >> representation." >> >> Dr. Alain Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper... as >> "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize", nothing >> could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I >> believe that there is sufficient evidence concerning misclassification >> that Cook et al's paper should be withdrawn by the authors and the >> data reanalyzed, preferably by less-biased reviewers." >> >> Professor Nils-Axel Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly >> misleading. My papers are strongly against AGW." >> >> Professor Willie Soon: "This rating of 'no position on AGW by CO2' is >> nowhere accurate nor correct." >> >> Professor Richard Tol: "7 out of 10 assessed papers were wrongly >> classified, another 112 were completely omitted! Of these, 111 (99%) >> were neutral. I think (their) data are a load of crap. I think (their) >> sampling strategy is a load of nonsense." >> >> DOUBLE D'OH!!! >>> DOUBLE D'OH!!! >> Double D'OH!!! on the fact that his own report says: >> ================================================== >> What Cook's study purported to do was to review the abstracts >> (not the entire papers, just the abstracts) of 11,000 climate >> science articles. >> >> But when you read the first paragraph of Cook's abstract for his >> study, it says, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no >> position on anthropogenic global warming, 32.6% endorsed >> anthropogenic global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were >> uncertain." >> >> That means only 1/3 of those papers had an opinion on >> human-caused global warming. The next sentence in Cook's abstract >> for his study says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on >> human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorsed the consensus >> position that humans are causing the warming." >> >> Of course, Cook exposes his bias in the sentence immediately above by >> k'laming there *is* a consensus, despite his own numbers proving there >> is not... he then went on to misclassify papers and omit those he >> couldn't misclassify in order to manufacture his k'lamed "consent". >> >> 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482 >> (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that >> global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all >> "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research >> assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed) >> papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC >> and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on. >> ================================================== >> >> Still having trouble grasping that basic math, DildoRider? Perhaps the >> libtard Cook is having trouble understanding the basic math, as well. >> Or perhaps he's a lying libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kook like you. LOL >>> now, how's about you and your dreamt-up k0okyKonservative wignut klimate >>> konspiracy theories frig right off? >> POINT 1: >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Oh, what will you do when your beloved skepticalscience.com agrees >> with me, DildoRider? LOL >> >> <https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm> >> ================================================== >> 97% of climate papers stating a position on human-caused global >> warming agree global warming is happening... and we are the cause." >> >> "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers >> (out of 12,000 abstracts) expressed a position on the cause of global >> warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming." >> ================================================== >> >> 4000 / 12000 = 33.3% of all papers stated a position. >> >> See the distinction there, DildoRider? 97% of *papers* *stating* *a* >> *position*, NOT 97% of climate scientists... your fallacy of >> equivocation is cute but utter bullshit. From Cook's own study above, >> only 32.6% of all papers stated a position.... and that was *with* >> Cook et. al. misclassifying a bunch of them, and omitting that which >> he knew he couldn't get away with misclassifying. Which corroborates >> my math above: >> >> 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482 >> (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that >> global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all >> "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research >> assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed) >> papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC >> and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on. >> >> And both the Cook study *and* the SkepticalScience.com follow-up >> collaboration with John Cook were debunked thoroughly: >> <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#page-1> >> Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, >> Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change >> >> "In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), >> seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that >> fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. >> Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the >> post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by >> measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous >> consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. >> (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied >> upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard >> definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is >> anthropogenic." >> >> D'OH! Did you get that, DildoRider? Cook et. al. lied, cherry-picked >> and outright falsified their data, same as all the other Klimate >> Katastrophe Kooks did when trying to sell their alarmist bullshit as >> steak. And they all got caught... ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0, >> remember? And now we have CartoonyGate by the failed cartoonist John >> Cook. LOL >> >> Lies, damned lies and statistics... and the libtard Klimate >> Katastrophe Kooks use all three. Too bad they're all too fucking >> stupid to get away with it. LOL >> >> SPNAK! on the math-challenged little emo scarecrow freak. LOL >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> *************************************************** >> *************************************************** >> Are ya *feeling* the bootfuck yet, DildoRider? LOL >> *************************************************** >> *************************************************** >> >> POINT 2 - Another "97%" myth: >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> The 97% number was created by meticulously selecting certain surveys >> using murky terminology to formulate a specific narrative. >> >> For example, one of the main sources of the 97% myth is a 2009 article >> by a student/teacher combo at the University of Illinois by the name >> of Doran and Zimmerman. The two of them conducted a two question >> online poll which concluded that 9 out of 10 scientists agreed >> temperatures were rising and mankind was the driving force. The >> survey was very heavy on temperature changes but very light on how >> humans played a role which essentially only confirmed that many >> scientists believe the climate is changing, which isn’t even remotely >> unusual. >> >> Another problem with this survey was that the “scientists†who were >> surveyed were scientists in the same way Bill Nye the Science guy is a >> scientist (he’s not, his highest level of education is a bachelor’s >> degree in engineering). Strangely, only 79 of the 3100 responses to >> this poll were from people who considered themselves experts in >> climate science. This survey was clearly not the landslide statement >> that climate change believers made it out to be. >> >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eost.v90.3/issuetoc >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> *********************************************************** >> *********************************************************** >> I say, are ya *_feeling_* the bootfuck yet, DildoRider? LOL >> *********************************************************** >> *********************************************************** >> >> POINT 3 - Another "97%" myth: >> Are you getting the feeling the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks had a >> meeting and decided upon the 97% number as high enough to convince >> gullible libtards that there was a consensus? LOL >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> The 97 Percent Myth >> June 3, 2014 >> >> Global warming advocates routinely toss out the statistic that 97 >> percent of scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made. >> Where did that figure come from? Joseph Bast, president of the >> Heartland Institute, and Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for >> the University of Alabama in Huntsville, explain the history behind >> the misleading number. >> >> In short, there is no basis for the claim that 97 percent of >> scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous >> problem. >> >> In 2004, Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard science historian, examined 928 >> abstracts of scientific journal articles, finding that three-quarters >> of them believed that humans were responsible for most of the observed >> warming of the last half-century. >> >> However, Oreskes did not analyze articles by prominent scientists -- >> such as Richard Lindzen and John Christy -- who question the >> "consensus" view. Additionally, a recent study in Nature magazine >> confirms that academic abstracts often contain claims that are not >> proven in the studies themselves. >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Bwahahaha! A science *historian*?! No formal climate science education >> there. Not a bit... and she's amply demonstrated herself to be one of >> the alarmism bleating Klimate Katastrophe Kooks. LOL >> >> ****************************************************************** >> ****************************************************************** >> I say, I say, are ya *_feeling_* the bootfuck YET, DildoRider? LOL >> ****************************************************************** >> ****************************************************************** >> >> POINT 4 - Another "97%" myth: >> Are you getting the *definite* feeling the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks >> had a meeting and decided upon the 97% number as high enough to >> convince gullible libtards that there was a consensus, then kept >> bleating their wholly manufactured lie in hopes it'd finally be >> believed? LOL >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> A 2009 article by University of Illinois student Maggie Kendall >> Zimmerman and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran also made the 97 >> percent claim. >> >> The authors made this conclusion after conducting a two-question >> online survey of 3,146 scientists, only 79 of which were experts in >> climate science and had published half of their recent peer-reviewed >> papers on climate change. It did not include the scientists most >> likely to understand the natural causes of climate change: solar >> scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists >> or astronomers. Moreover, the survey did not specify whether the human >> impact on global warming was large enough to constitute a problem. >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> On the other hand, write Bast and Spencer, the Petition Project -- a >> group of physicists and physical chemists in California -- has >> collected 31,487 signatures from American scientists agreeing that >> there is "no convincing scientific evidence that human release >> of...carbon dioxide...or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in >> the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's >> atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." >> >> Source: Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, "The Myth of the Climate Change >> '97%'" Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2014. >> >> So I'll see your measly 4,000 Klimate Katastrophe Kook "zOMG! Glorbul >> Woarmings! DUUURRRHHHH!" papers, and raise you more than THIRTY ONE >> THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN scientists (and that's just in the >> US) who say "bullshit". >> >> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >> >> In fact, I'll throw into the pot NASA, UAH, UK Met and RSS data >> proving the planet's been *cooling* for the whole 18 years you libtard >> Klimate Katastrophe Kooks have been screaming "zOMG! Gleurbil >> Woaermings! DUUURRRRHHH!". LOL >> >> =============================================================== >> <http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html> >> Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data. >> >> Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998. >> *Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~18 >> years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~18 years: >> <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF> >> >> Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com> >> Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent >> years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine >> archived it): >> <http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html> >> Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling* >> temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose. >> =============================================================== >> >> And I'll even toss in the proof that the oceans aren't absorbing any >> heat: >> ================================================= >> <http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/> >> <http://iceagenow.info/2014/10/nasa-stumped-deep-oceans-warmed-2005/> >> "When scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in >> Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean >> temperature data from 2005 to 2013, they found that "the ocean >> abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably", >> the space agency announced in a press release on Monday. >> ================================================= >> >> And the fact that TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) has been falling, which >> is the main causal factor for the planet cooling, lo these past 18 >> years: >> ================================================= >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance >> Differences between ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are evident, but the >> most significant is the solar minimum-to-minimum trends during solar >> cycles 21-23. ACRIM established an increase of +0.037%/decade from >> 1980 to 2000 and a decrease thereafter. >> >> The implications of increasing TSI during the global warming of the >> last two decades of the 20th century are that solar forcing may be a >> significantly larger factor in climate change than represented in the >> CMIP5 general circulation climate models.[22] >> ================================================= >> >> See the above, Ko0K? That means the total W/M^2 has been falling for >> the past decade and a half. And that your Klimate Katastrophe Kooks >> intentionally ignored TSI so they could instead place blame at the >> feet of CO2 and anthropogenicity to push their whackadoodle libtard >> Klimate Katastrophe Kook agenda. IOW, they fucking lied, and you're >> just stupid enough that you bought the lie. And now you're making a >> fool of yourself in defending your delusion. >> >> ********************************************************************* >> ********************************************************************* >> That's called "You've been bootfucked to hell and back, you gibbering >> retard". Now go clean yourself up, you pathetic putz. You're a fucking >> embarrassment. >> ********************************************************************* >> ********************************************************************* > now, there's the gish gallop we know and love! Translation: "Now there's the size 16 rectal reaming I know and love!" <snicker> -- Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey) 5907 Stanton Ave. Pittsburgh, PA DildoRider admits he's stoooopid: MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com> ================================================= >> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's >> damaged your brain, DildoRider. > then it appears that you like shooting fish in > barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are. Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell. <snicker> ================================================= DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com> ================================================= > so what you're saying is that your targets for attack > have to be really stupid or else you can't manage? =================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy
csiph-web