romney knows hurricane clean up

NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
FreedomWorks said:
Show me the average temperatures in America from the 1930s in comparison of how hot it has been for the past ten years. Your 1987 graph proves nothing.
Click to expand...
His 1970 graph wouldnt be too impressive either. That was the decade they were screaming we were heading into an ice age...

Notice how the term is now "Climate Change" as "Global Warming" has been debunked.

The reason that this shit is hyped up is because scientists make more money, get larger grants and more funding if we are all going to die tomorrow rather than nothing really happening for 1000 years...

Follow the money...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
yep, it's all just a hoax cooked up by scientists for measly research grants.

ignore the big oil companies hiring faux scientists, don't follow that money. follow the more piddling and insignificant amount of money, it will lead you right to the iran-syria border.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
yep, it's all just a hoax cooked up by scientists for measly research grants.

ignore the big oil companies hiring faux scientists, don't follow that money. follow the more piddling and insignificant amount of money, it will lead you right to the iran-syria border.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing scientists with saints.... LOL!!! Flounder...
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
That report was debunked years ago. Many of the scientists on the list later came out and said that they were misrepresented.

Climate change is real. How much man's influence on it is really the only debate.
Click to expand...
no citation whatsoever on your part, just more lies from the floundering fuckwit.

move on, kiddo.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
no citation whatsoever on your part, just more lies from the floundering fuckwit.

move on, kiddo.
Click to expand...
Well, yes. If I was told that, say, 97 percent of dentists agree that chewing Trident is better for your teeth than chewing bubble gum, that would make perfect sense. Trouble is, the idea that “97 percent of publishing climate scientists agree” human activity has created an out-of-control global warming crisis is a myth.To cop the immortal words of Rowdy Roddy Piper in the B-movie classic “They Live”: I have come here to chew bubble gum and debunk this myth … and I’m all out of bubble gum.
One of the most commonly cited studies of the “97 percent” was conducted by a University of Illinois professor and a graduate student who asked the following questions to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies:
Q1. When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
They received responses from 3,146 people, of which only 5 percent self‐identified as climate scientists. To get to the magic 97 percent in the affirmative to both questions — in the answers to questions even many skeptics would answer “yes” — the study’s authors had to whittle down the survey to a paltry 79 “climate scientists,” defined as those who also have “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer‐reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” The National Academy of Sciences survey is similarly skewed.
So, bottom line: A handful of “qualified” scientists asserting “fact” is not what it seems. Yet the enviro-left still clings to this fraudulent “argument by authority” nonsense.
Now that we’ve established the fraud of the “97 percent,” let’s move on the the Australian coverage — which features a new study entirely based on the fraud. Read it all yourself, but I love this quote best:
“[AGW Skeptics] will say science doesn’t work by vote, it’s about facts.”
​
Wait a minute? I thought the votes of 79 carefully screened climate scientists was supposed to be determinative? I guess that’s the case … except when it’s not. I’m confused. Doesn’t science work, not by vote, but by the examination of facts to test hypotheses? I think they teach that in middle school. By this “voting” standard, “American Idol” is science!
And let’s not even get into the meat of this Australian survey — which is of 200 “pedestrians” in Perth. Quite the sample. I really hope it’s not just people pulled off the street in front of local pubs.
So, the take away from this ridiculous study and article is this: If you push the lie that “97% of publishing climate scientists agree that global warming is a direct consequence of the burning of fossil fuels by humans” to random passersby in Perth … they will tend to believe your lie, your argument to “authority.”
In other words, bad science plus bad polling gets the results the warmists want. What a surprise! A good gig, if you can swing it.
Look at Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Reportfor peer-reviewed rebuttals to climate alarmism. And for B-movie fans, here’s the classic “They Live” clip about chewing bubble gum, if you haven’t already clicked through.
Click to expand...
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1#.UJMld8XA-31


Debunked...

They used a false subset of scientists mostly not involved in climate change science to make up a bullshit 97% statistic that they continuously parade around for the uninformed...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1#.UJMld8XA-31


Debunked...

They used a false subset of scientists mostly not involved in climate change science to make up a bullshit 97% statistic that they continuously parade around for the uninformed...
Click to expand...
are you on crack?

they only took the opinions of those who were climate scientists who had more than 50% of their peer-reviewed studies in the field of climate science.

that makes them mostly involved, not "mostly not involved" as you claimed. you stupid lying sack of shit.

you just debunked that in the same way you proved that iran is landlocked, you floundering fuckwit.

try again, kiddo.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
are you on crack?

they only took the opinions of those who were climate scientists who had more than 50% of their peer-reviewed studies in the field of climate science.

that makes them mostly involved, not "mostly not involved" as you claimed. you stupid lying sack of shit.

you just debunked that in the same way you proved that iran is landlocked, you floundering fuckwit.

try again, kiddo.
Click to expand...
yes, they ended up with 79 scientists in their study and concluded that 97% of them answered 2 biased questions in a way that they could say they all agreed.

It was bullshit, is bullshit and will continue to be bullshit.

Only someone who desperately wants to believe in global warming would eat this shit up.

Congrats on being in favor of spending other people's money in your agenda to save the world... Fucking parasite....
 
Samwell Seed Well

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
so 2 questions were used to sum up all the results . . . .id love to hear this explained

how long was this report, 79 scientist 2 question . . . . .so half page

caught in a dead lie . . and you still cant admit you have no idea what you are talking about
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
yes, they ended up with 79 scientists in their study and concluded that 97% of them answered 2 biased questions in a way that they could say they all agreed.

It was bullshit, is bullshit and will continue to be bullshit.

Only someone who desperately wants to believe in global warming would eat this shit up.

Congrats on being in favor of spending other people's money in your agenda to save the world... Fucking parasite....
Click to expand...
awwww, are you all butthurt and angry that i caught you in yet another lie?

so sad.

here's the lie, yet again, for everyone to see...


  • “climate scientists,” defined as those who also have “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer‐reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.”


    ​


    ​


  • scientists mostly not involved in climate change science​


    ​


how does it feel to get caught in yet another lie, kiddo?

does it feel bad to see your bullshit getting called out for what it is?
 
Samwell Seed Well

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
no there is another contrived excuse waiting,

glenn back aint on for another 10 hours so you will have to wait till then, to hear it .
 
B

beenthere

New Member
UncleBuck said:
awwww, are you all butthurt and angry that i caught you in yet another lie?

so sad.

here's the lie, yet again, for everyone to see...


  • “climate scientists,” defined as those who also have “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer‐reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.”


    ​


    ​


  • scientists mostly not involved in climate change science​


    ​


how does it feel to get caught in yet another lie, kiddo?

does it feel bad to see your bullshit getting called out for what it is?
Click to expand...
No lies here dipshit, it's opinion not fact!
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
No lies here dipshit, it's opinion not fact!
Click to expand...
no, it's fact.

your floundering fuckwit buddy tried to say the scientists surveyed were "mostly not involved" with climate science. FACT.

the study only surveyed climate scientists who had MORE than 50% of their peer reviewed work on climate science. FACT.

your floundering fuckwit buddy lied. deal with it, you yapping halfwit.
 
Samwell Seed Well

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
No lies here dipshit, it's opinion not fact!
Click to expand...
and there it is . . the same excuse they use when the lowest common denominator found in fox lies is also " an opinion"

“climate scientists,” defined as those who also have “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer‐reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.”



definitions are not opinions they are facts, self evident facts, or people could go around maknig up whatever they wanted a word or term to mean . . what is wrong with you

this is not the same as the morning show on fox news . .these people, climate scietist, work within a system with defined attributes and principles . . not the same as FOX news
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top