Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I should have added in there the world changes and so do climates. They does not mean that someone has a right to tax the whole that are already overburden for a few that worked out a nice little profitable scam for themselves.Freedom of press does not mean you cannot be held liable for printing liable, slander or printing false information.Donald Trump: Sue the press. Fuck the 1st Amendment.
There you go, fall in line
Just a matter of fact. You can say it but it will all come down to can you substantiate or back it upFreedom of press does not mean you cannot be held liable for printing liable, slander or printing false information.Donald Trump: Sue the press. Fuck the 1st Amendment.
There you go, fall in line
As a public figure it may be difficult but that does not mean that there are not others that can.Just a matter of fact. You can say it but it will all come down to can you substantiate or back it upFreedom of press does not mean you cannot be held liable for printing liable, slander or printing false information.Donald Trump: Sue the press. Fuck the 1st Amendment.
There you go, fall in line
He cant do it...but he tells you rubes he can
another lame excuse.Risk, hahahahaahahhahahahahahahahaha
Flying in a plane has risk.
obviously you've never given up yours .do you need your binky?Yawn ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.it not deflection it's fact.
Deflect much because you lost an argument?
I've lost nothing.
Lmao yes You are deflecting because you are so ignorant and didn't know what method Cook used...
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
The earth changes naturally. Humans cannot stop that progress even if they would like to.obviously you've never given up yours .do you need your binky?Yawn ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.it not deflection it's fact.Deflect much because you lost an argument?
I've lost nothing.
Lmao yes You are deflecting because you are so ignorant and didn't know what method Cook used...
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
does the term total and complete bullshit mean anything to you.The earth changes naturally. Humans cannot stop that progress even if they would like to.obviously you've never given up yours .do you need your binky?Yawn ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.it not deflection it's fact.
I've lost nothing.
Lmao yes You are deflecting because you are so ignorant and didn't know what method Cook used...
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
what excuse is that? you use words like risk. Well risk has a gambit so wide it is a useless word for something such as climate. What's the trending value in risk? First you have to have trends. What is yours?another lame excuse.Risk, hahahahaahahhahahahahahahahaha
Flying in a plane has risk.
lame excuse#2what excuse is that? you use words like risk. Well risk has a gambit so wide it is a useless word for something such as climate. What's the trending value in risk? First you have to have trends. What is yours?another lame excuse.Risk, hahahahaahahhahahahahahahahaha
Flying in a plane has risk.
Well that actually describes climate change presented by warmers. Thanks for announcing it for us.does the term total and complete bullshit mean anything to you.The earth changes naturally. Humans cannot stop that progress even if they would like to.obviously you've never given up yours .do you need your binky?Yawn ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.Lmao yes You are deflecting because you are so ignorant and didn't know what method Cook used...
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
I agree, your excuses are very lame. The fact you have zip is indeed as lame as any post I've seen.lame excuse#2what excuse is that? you use words like risk. Well risk has a gambit so wide it is a useless word for something such as climate. What's the trending value in risk? First you have to have trends. What is yours?another lame excuse.Risk, hahahahaahahhahahahahahahahaha
Flying in a plane has risk.
ah there we go, the denial of science and the argumentum ad populum fallacy.Well that actually describes climate change presented by warmers. Thanks for announcing it for us.does the term total and complete bullshit mean anything to you.The earth changes naturally. Humans cannot stop that progress even if they would like to.obviously you've never given up yours .do you need your binky?Yawn ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
I have made any excuses ..I leave that to you guys.I agree, your excuses are very lame. The fact you have zip is indeed as lame as any post I've seen.lame excuse#2what excuse is that? you use words like risk. Well risk has a gambit so wide it is a useless word for something such as climate. What's the trending value in risk? First you have to have trends. What is yours?another lame excuse.Risk, hahahahaahahhahahahahahahahaha
Flying in a plane has risk.
Sure and a lot of people pushing it around these days in places it does not belong.does the term total and complete bullshit mean anything to you.The earth changes naturally. Humans cannot stop that progress even if they would like to.obviously you've never given up yours .do you need your binky?Yawn ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.Lmao yes You are deflecting because you are so ignorant and didn't know what method Cook used...
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
see still no evidence to support yourself. must be tough to walk without support.ah there we go, the denial of science and the argumentum ad populum fallacy.Well that actually describes climate change presented by warmers. Thanks for announcing it for us.does the term total and complete bullshit mean anything to you.The earth changes naturally. Humans cannot stop that progress even if they would like to.obviously you've never given up yours .do you need your binky?
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
the entire line of yours is made up. if it wasn't you'd post up evidence to support it.I have made any excuses ..I leave that to you guys.I agree, your excuses are very lame. The fact you have zip is indeed as lame as any post I've seen.lame excuse#2what excuse is that? you use words like risk. Well risk has a gambit so wide it is a useless word for something such as climate. What's the trending value in risk? First you have to have trends. What is yours?another lame excuse.Risk, hahahahaahahhahahahahahahahaha
Flying in a plane has risk.
your whole argument is an excuse .
BTW, you forgot the 'm' I have made 'm'any excuses.I have made any excuses ..I leave that to you guys.I agree, your excuses are very lame. The fact you have zip is indeed as lame as any post I've seen.lame excuse#2what excuse is that? you use words like risk. Well risk has a gambit so wide it is a useless word for something such as climate. What's the trending value in risk? First you have to have trends. What is yours?another lame excuse.Risk, hahahahaahahhahahahahahahahaha
Flying in a plane has risk.
your whole argument is an excuse .
I have more than enough evidence .see still no evidence to support yourself. must be tough to walk without support.ah there we go, the denial of science and the argumentum ad populum fallacy.Well that actually describes climate change presented by warmers. Thanks for announcing it for us.does the term total and complete bullshit mean anything to you.The earth changes naturally. Humans cannot stop that progress even if they would like to.
I've made nothing up . typo Nazism is cheap.the entire line of yours is made up. if it wasn't you'd post up evidence to support it.I have made any excuses ..I leave that to you guys.I agree, your excuses are very lame. The fact you have zip is indeed as lame as any post I've seen.lame excuse#2what excuse is that? you use words like risk. Well risk has a gambit so wide it is a useless word for something such as climate. What's the trending value in risk? First you have to have trends. What is yours?another lame excuse.
your whole argument is an excuse .
oh how does risk work btw?
Like the folks that built their houses on sand banks?I have more than enough evidence .see still no evidence to support yourself. must be tough to walk without support.ah there we go, the denial of science and the argumentum ad populum fallacy.Well that actually describes climate change presented by warmers. Thanks for announcing it for us.does the term total and complete bullshit mean anything to you.The earth changes naturally. Humans cannot stop that progress even if they would like to.
you on the other hand have a steaming pile of denial.
nothing that can be presented can ever change that..
it's the price you pay for willful ignorance.
