Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!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: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 02:16:25 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,alt.usenet.kooks,sci.physics 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) References: <65002bc896720800888a3c3ecc6b84d3@dizum.com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:16:21 -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: 618 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-Sz8BqKTHGonRjJ/A6bv+G0b5NtneSwNTi8/yNthjDutZNty0JftRYn22lWrPtXl7kbhdJVKDEp2Ptqf!+4zAVBD3NFyW8nhrZ2pjT8HlChCfDYexduZoNJA3RDOGPoYOIDbrFtKdI+5dhA== 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: 28446 Xref: csiph.com alt.astronomy:274533 alt.conspiracy:265858 alt.usenet.kooks:599665 sci.physics:518080 On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:42:14 -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 Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:31:37 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangl= er >> 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 = = >>>> 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: >>> =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 y= our >> 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-found= er-john-cook/ >> >> "With an undergraduate education in physics from the University of >> Queensland and a post-graduate honors year studying solar physics, Co= ok >> 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 t= o >> climate professionals for having attached the =C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C5=93gr= eatest hoax known to = >> man=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C2=9D >> 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 > > > >> 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 warmin= g], >> 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 > > > 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: > =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 > 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 =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. > =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 > > 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 klim= ate >> konspiracy theories frig right off? > > POINT 1: > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Oh, what will you do when your beloved skepticalscience.com agrees > with me, DildoRider? LOL > > > =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 > 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." > =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 > > 4000 / 12000 =3D 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 =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. > > And both the Cook study *and* the SkepticalScience.com follow-up > collaboration with John Cook were debunked thoroughly: > > 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=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=80= =9C2030, 2013), > seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that > fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. > Their definition of climate =C3=A2=E2=82=AC=CB=9Cmisinformation=C3=A2=E2= =82=AC=E2=84=A2 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=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2= =84=A2t even remotely > unusual. > > Another problem with this survey was that the =C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C5=93sci= entists=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C2=9D who were > surveyed were scientists in the same way Bill Nye the Science guy is a= > scientist (he=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2s not, his highest level of educa= tion is a bachelor=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2s > 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 > > =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > 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: > > > Message-ID: > Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent > years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine > archived it): > > Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling* > temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose. > =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > And I'll even toss in the proof that the oceans aren't absorbing any > heat: > =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 > > > "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. > =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 > > 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: > =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 > 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] > =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 > > 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! -- = 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 --