Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.glorb.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:54:10 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,alt.usenet.kooks,sci.physics 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) References: <65002bc896720800888a3c3ecc6b84d3@dizum.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:54:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable 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" Organization: AUKTard Polizia Message-ID: User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) Lines: 193 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-jH3bweuuWPH0xZqnmhnKYlAxfVH0ztQUvoxH0DRMuRrcYagMYShJXtuSTmgThiGnV274fkczO/L+Dte!MI9+u+W8H5xla5oCR/A6iinKlqiLMR3jIv6dC06Uil90x7EKw0Ad8PwF6a/yxQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 8162 Xref: csiph.com alt.astronomy:274169 alt.conspiracy:265479 alt.usenet.kooks:599133 sci.physics:517460 On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:31:37 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler = = Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. > > 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 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) >> wrote: > > >>> ROT > >> 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 so= me >> hyper-complex conspiracy is involved. >> >> that would be as k0oky as denying what a majority of climate scientis= ts >> 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: > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > 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 =3D 3586 * .971 =3D 3482 > (3482 / 11000) * 100 =3D 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. > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > 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 cop= y = of a speech by Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, most known to = climate professionals for having attached the =E2=80=9Cgreatest hoax kno= wn to man=E2=80=9D = 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: header= s = 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 =E2= =80=94 as = it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjec= ts = 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 homewor= k = 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 --