- Moderator
- #21
where do they get the drugs they feed you people.....
Meth labs, Afghanistan, some hippies moldy garage. you name it, they probably find some there.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
where do they get the drugs they feed you people.....
[I read your articles and there was no retraction... Care to explain that????
Your articles cite other statements from the London Times and claims they have "effectively retracted" their climtategate story... WHat does "effectively retracted" mean?
Well going by what their article says it means anything they wish it to mean.....
The usual band of fools and the usual non replies and simpleminded circle jerk of idiots. Should one expect more from people who know as much about the issues as a worm knows of walking. Sorry following the story line lost you guys.
When one reads the wingnut replies one comes to understand why Sarah and Glenn are the intellectual minds for the 'Idiocracy of the Right.' Whacked out partisan ideologues require simple words and simple ideas, it fits the narrative in their heads.
From article. If you need help with the big words, please let me know. If the concepts are over your heads, I'd suggest a return to grade school or maybe a tutor. Mommy may be able to help too.
Its worth quoting the retraction at some length:
"But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claimnamely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was unsubstantiated. The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.
Its worth quoting the retraction at some length:
The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an unsubstantiated claim that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as green campaigners with little scientific expertise. The article also stated that the authors research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change."
Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done - Newsweek
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
The OP pieces and the retraction focus on the poor and incorrect information in the media. Information that is not checked well for accuracy. I realize subtlety is not something flat earth deniers are used to as all you have to walk forward, and you have confirmed your small idea. The correction is there but the negative impact of corporate spokespeople and media has great power over many. Sorry this is over your heads. I am not sure how much clearer a piece can be. It only proves that knowledge is not real for many but rather a creation of their biases and predispositions.
no, the OP does notThe OP pieces and the retraction focus on the poor and incorrect information in the media. Information that is not checked well for accuracy. I realize subtlety is not something flat earth deniers are used to as all you have to walk forward, and you have confirmed your small idea. The correction is there but the negative impact of corporate spokespeople and media has great power over many. Sorry this is over your heads. I am not sure how much clearer a piece can be. It only proves that knowledge is not real for many but rather a creation of their biases and predispositions.
PS Both DiveCon and Mr.Fitnah negative repped me for an OP that is clear and accurate and corrects the mistakes made by the source of the information. Would that make sense if you actually read the piece and thought about it? No, it only contradicts a worldview that requires a consistency not present in life, and says lots about those who know nothing about climate except that in their partisan world they can only think one way.
The OP pieces and the retraction focus on the poor and incorrect information in the media. Information that is not checked well for accuracy. I realize subtlety is not something flat earth deniers are used to as all you have to walk forward, and you have confirmed your small idea. The correction is there but the negative impact of corporate spokespeople and media has great power over many. Sorry this is over your heads. I am not sure how much clearer a piece can be. It only proves that knowledge is not real for many but rather a creation of their biases and predispositions.
PS Both DiveCon and Mr.Fitnah negative repped me for an OP that is clear and accurate and corrects the mistakes made by the source of the information. Would that make sense if you actually read the piece and thought about it? No, it only contradicts a worldview that requires a consistency not present in life, and says lots about those who know nothing about climate except that in their partisan world they can only think one way.
Mann has been totally exonerated here in the States, and Jones and East Anglia have been the same in England.
Our local cretin brigade prefers to ignore the facts once again. And they will move on to another lie, never acknowledging that this one failed.
What's the name of that river in Africa?Mann has been totally exonerated here in the States, and Jones and East Anglia have been the same in England.
Our local cretin brigade prefers to ignore the facts once again. And they will move on to another lie, never acknowledging that this one failed.
keep showing how massively fucking stupid you can be, it is very amusingMann has been totally exonerated here in the States, and Jones and East Anglia have been the same in England.
Our local cretin brigade prefers to ignore the facts once again. And they will move on to another lie, never acknowledging that this one failed.
holy shit, the WSJ is wingnut to you???Even the wingnut opinionated wsj....
'Report Backs Climate Data, Scolds Scientists'
'U.K. Inquiry Concludes Researchers Didn't Skew Findings, but Says They Failed to Display a 'Proper Degree of Openness'
'Climategate' Inquiry Largely Vindicates Scientists - WSJ.com
holy shit, the WSJ is wingnut to you???Even the wingnut opinionated wsj....
'Report Backs Climate Data, Scolds Scientists'
'U.K. Inquiry Concludes Researchers Didn't Skew Findings, but Says They Failed to Display a 'Proper Degree of Openness'
'Climategate' Inquiry Largely Vindicates Scientists - WSJ.com
i guess from the moonbat perspective it might be
you moronic moonbat
again, YOU are a moonbatholy shit, the WSJ is wingnut to you???Even the wingnut opinionated wsj....
'Report Backs Climate Data, Scolds Scientists'
'U.K. Inquiry Concludes Researchers Didn't Skew Findings, but Says They Failed to Display a 'Proper Degree of Openness'
'Climategate' Inquiry Largely Vindicates Scientists - WSJ.com
i guess from the moonbat perspective it might be
you moronic moonbat
Yes, concerning AGW, the WSJ is wingnut. What if peer reviewed scientific journals, Science and Nature, were to start giving advice concerning investments? What would you consider that?
The WSJ is looking at things strictly from a corperate point of view. Corperations that depend on the sale of fossil fuels for huge profit margins. And reality states that this cannot continue. The WSJ does not like that reality. You do not like that reality. All of which changes that reality not one whit.