Climate Scientist: Denial Should be a Criminal Offense

[Uncensored2008]

SFADD.

Derp derp derpity derp indeed, you fucking drunk.

 

[Wyatt earp]

hahahahaahaha you have zip evidence thank you very much. But hey, don't let your visions get in the way of facts. so how hot is 20 PPM of CO2? You have that info? What happens to the jet stream with 20 PPM of CO2. Where's that evidence denier.

And name one city where climate has changed in the last 30 years. Got one?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

What you really hate facts, or could it be you hope a Calvary of the AGW cult shows up in this thread to protect you?

Nope. Then again you've presented no facts.
You have the same "mindset" as all other Crapspiracy theorists.
The only argument you clowns have is you might have to pay for it.
Other than that you got nothing.

I produced a shit load of facts..I even dumbed it down for even you to understand Cooks 97 percent research was all about, again..science for dummys..

How much simpler can I get?

...a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

Insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.

You are refusing to learn..God damn girl the weather and climate is so complex to believe the opposite of what you were taught in 2 nd grade, blows my mind away.

 

[daws101]

SFADD.

Derp derp derpity derp indeed, you fucking drunk.

SFADD.

 

[daws101]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

What you really hate facts, or could it be you hope a Calvary of the AGW cult shows up in this thread to protect you?

Nope. Then again you've presented no facts.
You have the same "mindset" as all other Crapspiracy theorists.
The only argument you clowns have is you might have to pay for it.
Other than that you got nothing.

I produced a shit load of facts..I even dumbed it down for even you to understand Cooks 97 percent research was all about, again..science for dummys..

How much simpler can I get?

...a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

Insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.

You are refusing to learn..God damn girl the weather and climate is so complex to believe the opposite of what you were taught in 2 nd grade, blows my mind away.

False !
You have nothing to teach and you have gender identification disorder.
Never been or will be a female.

 

[jc456]

Well that actually describes climate change presented by warmers. Thanks for announcing it for us.

ah there we go, the denial of science and the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

see still no evidence to support yourself. must be tough to walk without support.

I have more than enough evidence .
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.

hahahahaahaha you have zip evidence thank you very much. But hey, don't let your visions get in the way of facts. so how hot is 20 PPM of CO2? You have that info? What happens to the jet stream with 20 PPM of CO2. Where's that evidence denier.

And name one city where climate has changed in the last 30 years. Got one?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Another binkie request

 

[Wyatt earp]

What you really hate facts, or could it be you hope a Calvary of the AGW cult shows up in this thread to protect you?

Nope. Then again you've presented no facts.
You have the same "mindset" as all other Crapspiracy theorists.
The only argument you clowns have is you might have to pay for it.
Other than that you got nothing.

I produced a shit load of facts..I even dumbed it down for even you to understand Cooks 97 percent research was all about, again..science for dummys..

How much simpler can I get?

...a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

Insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.

You are refusing to learn..God damn girl the weather and climate is so complex to believe the opposite of what you were taught in 2 nd grade, blows my mind away.

False !
You have nothing to teach and you have gender identification disorder.
Never been or will be a female.

Huh? Then why do you post and have the common sense of a girl?

So confusing ..the school system indocterated you beyond help I think.

 

[jc456]

S

hahahahaahaha you have zip evidence thank you very much. But hey, don't let your visions get in the way of facts. so how hot is 20 PPM of CO2? You have that info? What happens to the jet stream with 20 PPM of CO2. Where's that evidence denier.

And name one city where climate has changed in the last 30 years. Got one?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

What you really hate facts, or could it be you hope a Calvary of the AGW cult shows up in this thread to protect you?

Nope. Then again you've presented no facts.
You have the same "mindset" as all other Crapspiracy theorists.
The only argument you clowns have is you might have to pay for it.
Other than that you got nothing.

I produced a shit load of facts..I even dumbed it down for even you to understand Cooks 97 percent research was all about, again..science for dummys..

How much simpler can I get?

...a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

Insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.

so when will you present your evidence I asked you for?

 

[daws101]

Nope. Then again you've presented no facts.
You have the same "mindset" as all other Crapspiracy theorists.
The only argument you clowns have is you might have to pay for it.
Other than that you got nothing.

I produced a shit load of facts..I even dumbed it down for even you to understand Cooks 97 percent research was all about, again..science for dummys..

How much simpler can I get?

...a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

Insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.

You are refusing to learn..God damn girl the weather and climate is so complex to believe the opposite of what you were taught in 2 nd grade, blows my mind away.

False !
You have nothing to teach and you have gender identification disorder.
Never been or will be a female.

Huh? Then why do you post and have the common sense of a girl?

So confusing ..the school system indocterated you beyond help I think.

Thanks for confirming your ignorance.

 

[daws101]

S

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

What you really hate facts, or could it be you hope a Calvary of the AGW cult shows up in this thread to protect you?

Nope. Then again you've presented no facts.
You have the same "mindset" as all other Crapspiracy theorists.
The only argument you clowns have is you might have to pay for it.
Other than that you got nothing.

I produced a shit load of facts..I even dumbed it down for even you to understand Cooks 97 percent research was all about, again..science for dummys..

How much simpler can I get?

...a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

Insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.

so when will you present your evidence I asked you for?

Never .
Since you have no real interest in the facts .
Another cost of willful ignorance.

 

[jc456]

S

What you really hate facts, or could it be you hope a Calvary of the AGW cult shows up in this thread to protect you?

Nope. Then again you've presented no facts.
You have the same "mindset" as all other Crapspiracy theorists.
The only argument you clowns have is you might have to pay for it.
Other than that you got nothing.

I produced a shit load of facts..I even dumbed it down for even you to understand Cooks 97 percent research was all about, again..science for dummys..

How much simpler can I get?

...a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

Insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.

so when will you present your evidence I asked you for?

Never .
Since you have no real interest in the facts .
Another cost of willful ignorance.

Packaged answer and again proving my point. No evidence for support, therefore bullishit Message board mumbo jumbo

 

[daws101]

S

Nope. Then again you've presented no facts.
You have the same "mindset" as all other Crapspiracy theorists.
The only argument you clowns have is you might have to pay for it.
Other than that you got nothing.

I produced a shit load of facts..I even dumbed it down for even you to understand Cooks 97 percent research was all about, again..science for dummys..

How much simpler can I get?

...a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

Insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.

so when will you present your evidence I asked you for?

Never .
Since you have no real interest in the facts .
Another cost of willful ignorance.

Packaged answer and again proving my point. No evidence for support, therefore bullishit Message board mumbo jumbo

In reality it's proves mine, willful ignorance over fact.
You proved long ago that no fact is acceptable except denial.

 

[Billy_Bob]

S

I produced a shit load of facts..I even dumbed it down for even you to understand Cooks 97 percent research was all about, again..science for dummys..

How much simpler can I get?

...a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

Insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.

so when will you present your evidence I asked you for?

Never .
Since you have no real interest in the facts .
Another cost of willful ignorance.

Packaged answer and again proving my point. No evidence for support, therefore bullishit Message board mumbo jumbo

In reality it's proves mine, willful ignorance over fact.
You proved long ago that no fact is acceptable except denial.

Failed modeling is all you got.. No empirical evidence whatsoever and it shows your models fraud and failures.. Keep that head rectally implanted..

 

[daws101]

Nope. Then again you've presented no facts.
You have the same "mindset" as all other Crapspiracy theorists.
The only argument you clowns have is you might have to pay for it.
Other than that you got nothing.

I produced a shit load of facts..I even dumbed it down for even you to understand Cooks 97 percent research was all about, again..science for dummys..

How much simpler can I get?

...a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

Insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.

You are refusing to learn..God damn girl the weather and climate is so complex to believe the opposite of what you were taught in 2 nd grade, blows my mind away.

False !
You have nothing to teach and you have gender identification disorder.
Never been or will be a female.

Huh? Then why do you post and have the common sense of a girl?

So confusing ..the school system indocterated you beyond help I think.

 

[daws101]

S

Insanity: doing or saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.

so when will you present your evidence I asked you for?

Never .
Since you have no real interest in the facts .
Another cost of willful ignorance.

Packaged answer and again proving my point. No evidence for support, therefore bullishit Message board mumbo jumbo

In reality it's proves mine, willful ignorance over fact.
You proved long ago that no fact is acceptable except denial.

Failed modeling is all you got.. No empirical evidence whatsoever and it shows your models fraud and failures.. Keep that head rectally implanted..

Another classic Crapspiracy theorist load of shit.

 

[daws101]

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

 

[mamooth]

A fine dishonest denier thread.

Weatherman, why did you claim a no-name sociologist in New Zealand was "climate scientist"?

And why have all you other deniers jumped on that lying bandwagon?

I'll answer that. It's because every denier always lies about everything. Duh.

What's next deniers, finding quotes from blog commenters? How desperate are you to pretend to be persecuted, and to deflect from your own fanatical Stalinism?

Oh, Dr. Jerod Gilbert is a dumbass, for the record.

Unlike we rational people, all deniers on this board, without exception, are still proud Stalinists who want to jail every scientist they don't like. If any of them would like to prove otherwise by condemning the denier attempts to jail Dr. Mann, step right up.

 

[jc456]

A fine dishonest denier thread.

Weatherman, why did you claim a no-name sociologist in New Zealand was "climate scientist"?

And why have all you other deniers jumped on that lying bandwagon?

I'll answer that. It's because every denier always lies about everything. Duh.

What's next deniers, finding quotes from blog commenters? How desperate are you to pretend to be persecuted, and to deflect from your own fanatical Stalinism?

Oh, Dr. Jerod Gilbert is a dumbass, for the record.

Unlike we rational people, all deniers on this board, without exception, are still proud Stalinists who want to jail every scientist they don't like. If any of them would like to prove otherwise by condemning the denier attempts to jail Dr. Mann, step right up.

Why can't you post evidence of what 20 ppm of CO2 does to temperature and weather?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Climate Change Risk Threatens 18 U.S. Military Sites, Study Finds

Bullshit studies for people who can't think.

 

[Weatherman2020]

A fine dishonest denier thread.

Weatherman, why did you claim a no-name sociologist in New Zealand was "climate scientist"?

And why have all you other deniers jumped on that lying bandwagon?

I'll answer that. It's because every denier always lies about everything. Duh.

What's next deniers, finding quotes from blog commenters? How desperate are you to pretend to be persecuted, and to deflect from your own fanatical Stalinism?

Oh, Dr. Jerod Gilbert is a dumbass, for the record.

Unlike we rational people, all deniers on this board, without exception, are still proud Stalinists who want to jail every scientist they don't like. If any of them would like to prove otherwise by condemning the denier attempts to jail Dr. Mann, step right up.

Poor baby, it's his claim and now you want to distance yourself.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Deflect much because you lost an argument?

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.

Yawn ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

do you need your binky?

obviously you've never given up yours .

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

NASA can't even get a man in space.