The "Science is settled" narrative is STOOPID

[bripat9643]

Thank you Bri. I asked you to put up Goddard's fudged graph, and you didn't disappoint. I'm proud of you, and your cult masters are pleased with you as well. Mucho cult brownie points for you.

Yes, it's all faked data, but that doesn't bother a true believer like you. For a cultist, the ends always justify the means. Faking data advances the agenda of your cult, therefore you define the data-faking as good and holy.

However, your cult masters did ask me to pass along to you that your sissyboy bedwetting routine is embarrassing the cult. They'd like you to stop with all the high-pitched hysterical squealing, being it's causing all the dogs in the neighborhood to howl.

Oh, you know I'm a dude, so please stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way.

Goddard is the one who uncovered the faked data. NASA and Jim Hansen are the ones who doctored the data. The evidence is too overwhelming to deny.

I see the Heartland Institute still attracts losers like Toney Heller, aka Steven Goddard.

Steven Goddard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[6] Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[7] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[8] Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[9] and Fox News Channel host Steve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.

The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth scientist Zeke Hausfather, who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[10] Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[11]

In a response to Politifact on his blog, Goddard argued that while NASA has official reasons for the adjustments they make to temperature data, "their adjustments are highly subjective, and are subject to software and algorithm errors."[12]

Noted climate change skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." [13]

His own deniertard buddies called him on his bs.

Only the most gullible morons think Wiki entries that are even the slightest bit political are credible. It's well known that environmental wackos have gone through all the entries related to global warming and edited them to make them politically correct - that is, they now all support the AGW hocu-pocus, regardless of the facts.

Interesting that you didn't actually say you disagree with the facts pointed out about this loser.

I think what I pointed out the when you find facts in Wiki about global warming, it's purely accidental.

 

[orogenicman]

Thank you Bri. I asked you to put up Goddard's fudged graph, and you didn't disappoint. I'm proud of you, and your cult masters are pleased with you as well. Mucho cult brownie points for you.

Yes, it's all faked data, but that doesn't bother a true believer like you. For a cultist, the ends always justify the means. Faking data advances the agenda of your cult, therefore you define the data-faking as good and holy.

However, your cult masters did ask me to pass along to you that your sissyboy bedwetting routine is embarrassing the cult. They'd like you to stop with all the high-pitched hysterical squealing, being it's causing all the dogs in the neighborhood to howl.

Oh, you know I'm a dude, so please stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way.

Goddard is the one who uncovered the faked data. NASA and Jim Hansen are the ones who doctored the data. The evidence is too overwhelming to deny.

I see the Heartland Institute still attracts losers like Toney Heller, aka Steven Goddard.

Steven Goddard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[6] Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[7] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[8] Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[9] and Fox News Channel host Steve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.

The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth scientist Zeke Hausfather, who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[10] Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[11]

In a response to Politifact on his blog, Goddard argued that while NASA has official reasons for the adjustments they make to temperature data, "their adjustments are highly subjective, and are subject to software and algorithm errors."[12]

Noted climate change skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." [13]

His own deniertard buddies called him on his bs.

Only the most gullible morons think Wiki entries that are even the slightest bit political are credible. It's well known that environmental wackos have gone through all the entries related to global warming and edited them to make them politically correct - that is, they now all support the AGW hocu-pocus, regardless of the facts.

Interesting that you didn't actually say you disagree with the facts pointed out about this loser.

I think what I pointed out the when you find facts in Wiki about global warming, it's purely accidental.

Erm, someone accidently placed the article on Wikipedia? No doubt, so you'd have something to whine about. Oh my, put the bottle down.

 

[bripat9643]

Goddard is the one who uncovered the faked data. NASA and Jim Hansen are the ones who doctored the data. The evidence is too overwhelming to deny.

I see the Heartland Institute still attracts losers like Toney Heller, aka Steven Goddard.

Steven Goddard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[6] Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[7] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[8] Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[9] and Fox News Channel host Steve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.

The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth scientist Zeke Hausfather, who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[10] Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[11]

In a response to Politifact on his blog, Goddard argued that while NASA has official reasons for the adjustments they make to temperature data, "their adjustments are highly subjective, and are subject to software and algorithm errors."[12]

Noted climate change skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." [13]

His own deniertard buddies called him on his bs.

Only the most gullible morons think Wiki entries that are even the slightest bit political are credible. It's well known that environmental wackos have gone through all the entries related to global warming and edited them to make them politically correct - that is, they now all support the AGW hocu-pocus, regardless of the facts.

Interesting that you didn't actually say you disagree with the facts pointed out about this loser.

I think what I pointed out the when you find facts in Wiki about global warming, it's purely accidental.

Erm, someone accidently placed the article on Wikipedia? No doubt, so you'd have something to whine about. Oh my, put the bottle down.

Apparently you have a comprehension problem. The article wasn't put their by accident, but if it contains any facts, that is purely accidental.

 

[orogenicman]

I see the Heartland Institute still attracts losers like Toney Heller, aka Steven Goddard.

Steven Goddard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

His own deniertard buddies called him on his bs.

Only the most gullible morons think Wiki entries that are even the slightest bit political are credible. It's well known that environmental wackos have gone through all the entries related to global warming and edited them to make them politically correct - that is, they now all support the AGW hocu-pocus, regardless of the facts.

Interesting that you didn't actually say you disagree with the facts pointed out about this loser.

I think what I pointed out the when you find facts in Wiki about global warming, it's purely accidental.

Erm, someone accidently placed the article on Wikipedia? No doubt, so you'd have something to whine about. Oh my, put the bottle down.

Apparently you have a comprehension problem. The article wasn't put their by accident, but if it contains any facts, that is purely accidental.

I'm sure that's what your corporate handlers want you to believe.

 

[bripat9643]

Only the most gullible morons think Wiki entries that are even the slightest bit political are credible. It's well known that environmental wackos have gone through all the entries related to global warming and edited them to make them politically correct - that is, they now all support the AGW hocu-pocus, regardless of the facts.

Interesting that you didn't actually say you disagree with the facts pointed out about this loser.

I think what I pointed out the when you find facts in Wiki about global warming, it's purely accidental.

Erm, someone accidently placed the article on Wikipedia? No doubt, so you'd have something to whine about. Oh my, put the bottle down.

Apparently you have a comprehension problem. The article wasn't put their by accident, but if it contains any facts, that is purely accidental.

I'm sure that's what your corporate handlers want you to believe.

I wish I had some corporate handlers. That would mean I was getting paid to do this.

 

[rdean]

With Republicans, it's make as statement and ignore data that says they are wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Interesting that you didn't actually say you disagree with the facts pointed out about this loser.

I think what I pointed out the when you find facts in Wiki about global warming, it's purely accidental.

Erm, someone accidently placed the article on Wikipedia? No doubt, so you'd have something to whine about. Oh my, put the bottle down.

Apparently you have a comprehension problem. The article wasn't put their by accident, but if it contains any facts, that is purely accidental.

I'm sure that's what your corporate handlers want you to believe.

I wish I had some corporate handlers. That would mean I was getting paid to do this.

Notice how the AGWCult projects their worldview on us

 

[CrusaderFrank]

With Republicans, it's make as statement and ignore data that says they are wrong.

Hey Boy Wonder, I'm not seeing "Consensus" and "Settled Science" on your chart.

Moreover, where are the testable AGWCult predictions and turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking "ManMade Global Warming you fucking Denier!!!" is not a prediction

Can you name one (1) testable AGWCult prediction

 

[bripat9643]

With Republicans, it's make as statement and ignore data that says they are wrong.

You mean like Algore's statement that the Arctic ice is disappearing or the warmer claim that the Earth's climate would be warmer now than 17 years ago?

 

[bripat9643]

I think what I pointed out the when you find facts in Wiki about global warming, it's purely accidental.

Erm, someone accidently placed the article on Wikipedia? No doubt, so you'd have something to whine about. Oh my, put the bottle down.

Apparently you have a comprehension problem. The article wasn't put their by accident, but if it contains any facts, that is purely accidental.

I'm sure that's what your corporate handlers want you to believe.

I wish I had some corporate handlers. That would mean I was getting paid to do this.

Notice how the AGWCult projects their worldview on us

Yes, whenever I see accusations like that I just take them to mean that's how they are accustomed to operating.

 

[bripat9643]

With Republicans, it's make as statement and ignore data that says they are wrong.

Hey Boy Wonder, I'm not seeing "Consensus" and "Settled Science" on your chart.

Moreover, where are the testable AGWCult predictions and turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking "ManMade Global Warming you fucking Denier!!!" is not a prediction

Can you name one (1) testable AGWCult prediction

Also notice that in light of the evidence they never alter refine their hypothesis.

 

[jc456]

With Republicans, it's make as statement and ignore data that says they are wrong.

so when can we get back to this process flow you've posted up here? Let's see the experiments that show the tests. I haven't seen one hypothesis proven on here in fourteen months.

 

[bripat9643]

With Republicans, it's make as statement and ignore data that says they are wrong.

so when can we get back to this process flow you've posted up here? Let's see the experiments that show the tests. I haven't seen one hypothesis proven on here in fourteen months.

Rdean thought he was posting a killer argument, but all he did is highlight all the defects in the claims of the AGW cult.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey JC.......got a question for ya bud???

If the science is settled, how come the Obama's just bought a beachfront home in Hawaii??!!!

 

[jc456]

Hey JC.......got a question for ya bud???

If the science is settled, how come the Obama's just bought a beachfront home in Hawaii??!!!

because the science is settled. The settled part is that there is no cause for alarm. So Mr. Obama has confirmed the skeptics view. Don't ya think?

 

[skookerasbil]

still looking pretty fucking stoopid!!!!!!