"DENIER" the term that is costing alarmists all credibility.

[Crick]

The left wits are so busy rewriting the climactic record that they are destroying all of their previous lies ground work. This house of cards is about to implode.

With the Earth showing up as the biggest denier of the AGW cult, it wasn't long before they had to manipulate the data, in an effort to not be shown as snake oil salesmen.

THAT was a damn fine observation!

They are pissed off at planet Earth for being an AGW (climate change) DENIER!

Just like skeptics, the earth does not deny or stop change. Its the type of change that it is doing that is showing the alarmist liars. So the term denier is not applicable to either one. hmmmmmmmmmmm

the next moron left wit to call me a 'denier' is going to be challenged to provide proof of their allegations and justification for their use of the term!

The adjustments made to the major datasets have done nothing but make them more accurate. The earth is not denying AGW, it is a planet full of evidence that AGW is precisely what is taking place. You are not a skeptic. You are... wait for it... a DENIER.

 

[Crick]

The left wits are so busy rewriting the climactic record that they are destroying all of their previous lies ground work. This house of cards is about to implode.

With the Earth showing up as the biggest denier of the AGW cult, it wasn't long before they had to manipulate the data, in an effort to not be shown as snake oil salesmen.

THAT was a damn fine observation!

They are pissed off at planet Earth for being an AGW (climate change) DENIER!

Except he has never observed what he's claiming.

 

[mamooth]

The term Holocaust Denier was meant to impugn and degrade the Mullahs in open communications around the world.

Then you should probably stop comparing yourself to a holocaust denier. Since you're the only one doing so, that would fix your problem.

You're welcome.

 

[Crick]

The CIA are not linguists or etymologists. They have no interest in the history of a word - they are reporting on a specific instance of usage. If you have no problem with people thinking you deny undeniable evidence, just as do flat earthers, folks who think we never went to the moon, people who think the US government blew up the WTC and people who deny the Holocaust ever took place, then more power to you. But don't complain when people call you a denier, because that's what you are.

You really have no clue about how the CIA or other covert agencies work do you?

I'm pretty damn certain I have at least as much understanding as do you.

The term Holocaust Denier was meant to impugn and degrade the Mullahs in open communications around the world.

You apparently made not the slightest attempt to investigate the facts. The first Holocaust deniers were the Nazis themselves, who eventually realized they would lose the war and would face prosecution for the genocidal crimes they'd committed. They made enormous efforts to destroy evidence and create a new version of events. Holocaust Denial carried on after the war through the present day as a facet of anti-semitism. The practice was not widespread among Arabs, Pharsi or other semites till fairly recently. They picked it up from European and American anti-semites: Neither Harry Elmer Barnes nor David Hoggan, Paul Rassinier, Arthur Butz, David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Willis Carto, James J Martin, Samuel Konkin, Bradley Smith, James Keegstra, Ernst Zundal, Richard Verral, Fred Leuchter, Ernst Nolte, Arno Mayer, Masanori Nishioka were of middle eastern origin, yet all were noted to be Holocaust deniers before the first Islamic preacher: Turkish Harun Yahya came out publicly denying the occurrence of the Holocaust in 1996.

The State department long before Obama buddy/buddied these fools used to expose their horrific beliefs of superiority and self-righteousness by belittling these men in public. Exposing the denial that genocide was perpetrated in world dealings was extremely demeaning and degrading to the Mullahs. Its soul purpose was to keep their world conquering agenda from becoming what Obama has done to it today. 9-11 was simply the radicals move to become meaningful again, and it worked.

That's as close to meaningless as I think you're capable of producing. It's relevance to this thread is ephemeral at best. Were you actually planning on discussing AGW deniers or whether or not you're actually a skeptic or whether mainstream science has done itself a huge disservice by calling you all deniers? Eh? You know, the thread TOPIC???

 

[Billy_Bob]

All you have is a gut feeling with all the people, that's not science.ya say look at the colorful charts in the past 100 year's a 100 year's is nothing to 4.5 billion year's. If you could put a graph up of the actual year to year temperture of earth when it was born till today, people would think you alarmist are a ******* freak show and laugh you out of the house.

If you could put that graph up - and there's no reason you can't, the data exist - you would certainly see current temperatures exceeded. What you would find exceedingly rare, however, would be instances in which temperatures (and CO2 levels) changed as rapidly as they have over the last 150 years. Such events would be limited to meteor strikes and other global conflagrations. The change we have seen over the last century - particularly the CO2 level - are the core of the problem. Humans would have no difficulty with a two degree temperature rise that took place over 10,000 years. Hell, ten degrees over ten millennia would go almost unnoticed. We are going to have significant problems dealing with such a change taking place in one-one hundredth that much time.

Once again the hype is nothing more that crap. If we remove all spurious adjustments the rise in temperature is bu 0.6 deg C in 150 years, noting we have just left the LIA and warming is not unexpected. the rate of rise is not statistically different from any other time in geological history

 

[Crick]

You don't seem to know what the **** you're talking about.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The CIA are not linguists or etymologists. They have no interest in the history of a word - they are reporting on a specific instance of usage. If you have no problem with people thinking you deny undeniable evidence, just as do flat earthers, folks who think we never went to the moon, people who think the US government blew up the WTC and people who deny the Holocaust ever took place, then more power to you. But don't complain when people call you a denier, because that's what you are.

You really have no clue about how the CIA or other covert agencies work do you?

I'm pretty damn certain I have at least as much understanding as do you.

The term Holocaust Denier was meant to impugn and degrade the Mullahs in open communications around the world.

You apparently made not the slightest attempt to investigate the facts. The first Holocaust deniers were the Nazis themselves, who eventually realized they would lose the war and would face prosecution for the genocidal crimes they'd committed. They made enormous efforts to destroy evidence and create a new version of events. Holocaust Denial carried on after the war through the present day as a facet of anti-semitism. The practice was not widespread among Arabs, Pharsi or other semites till fairly recently. They picked it up from European and American anti-semites: Neither Harry Elmer Barnes nor David Hoggan, Paul Rassinier, Arthur Butz, David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Willis Carto, James J Martin, Samuel Konkin, Bradley Smith, James Keegstra, Ernst Zundal, Richard Verral, Fred Leuchter, Ernst Nolte, Arno Mayer, Masanori Nishioka were of middle eastern origin, yet all were noted to be Holocaust deniers before the first Islamic preacher: Turkish Harun Yahya came out publicly denying the occurrence of the Holocaust in 1996.

The State department long before Obama buddy/buddied these fools used to expose their horrific beliefs of superiority and self-righteousness by belittling these men in public. Exposing the denial that genocide was perpetrated in world dealings was extremely demeaning and degrading to the Mullahs. Its soul purpose was to keep their world conquering agenda from becoming what Obama has done to it today. 9-11 was simply the radicals move to become meaningful again, and it worked.

That's as close to meaningless as I think you're capable of producing. It's relevance to this thread is ephemeral at best. Were you actually planning on discussing AGW deniers or whether or not you're actually a skeptic or whether mainstream science has done itself a huge disservice by calling you all deniers? Eh? You know, the thread TOPIC???

You are one who hasn't even a clue as to what psychological warfare can do to your opponent. Or you are purposely being deceptive to justify your behavior. As you show above it was widely used in the last 25 years by left wing activists and the Radical Islamists themselves. The psyop was very successful at cutting off Iraq and Iran until our current president embraced them and turned this degradation on those who do not approve of his globalist control fanatical views. Mann and Hansen originally used this same tactic but it didn't gain real traction until Obama and the left wing zealots tried to give it legitimacy.

The operation was indeed in use long before it was openly recognized in the early 90's

 

[Billy_Bob]

<snip>
You apparently made not the slightest attempt to investigate the facts. The first Holocaust deniers were the Nazis themselves, who eventually realized they would lose the war and would face prosecution for the genocidal crimes they'd committed. They made enormous efforts to destroy evidence and create a new version of events. Holocaust Denial carried on after the war through the present day as a facet of anti-semitism. The practice was not widespread among Arabs, Pharsi or other semites till fairly recently. They picked it up from European and American anti-semites: Neither Harry Elmer Barnes nor David Hoggan, Paul Rassinier, Arthur Butz, David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Willis Carto, James J Martin, Samuel Konkin, Bradley Smith, James Keegstra, Ernst Zundal, Richard Verral, Fred Leuchter, Ernst Nolte, Arno Mayer, Masanori Nishioka were of middle eastern origin, yet all were noted to be Holocaust deniers before the first Islamic preacher: Turkish Harun Yahya came out publicly denying the occurrence of the Holocaust in 1996.

The MMGW crowd is indeed loosing the battle and they too, the Climate Change crowd is certainly busy destroying and making shit up... The behavior is one that is unmistakable of liars and thieves...

 

[Crick]

The CIA are not linguists or etymologists. They have no interest in the history of a word - they are reporting on a specific instance of usage. If you have no problem with people thinking you deny undeniable evidence, just as do flat earthers, folks who think we never went to the moon, people who think the US government blew up the WTC and people who deny the Holocaust ever took place, then more power to you. But don't complain when people call you a denier, because that's what you are.

You really have no clue about how the CIA or other covert agencies work do you?

I'm pretty damn certain I have at least as much understanding as do you.

The term Holocaust Denier was meant to impugn and degrade the Mullahs in open communications around the world.

You apparently made not the slightest attempt to investigate the facts. The first Holocaust deniers were the Nazis themselves, who eventually realized they would lose the war and would face prosecution for the genocidal crimes they'd committed. They made enormous efforts to destroy evidence and create a new version of events. Holocaust Denial carried on after the war through the present day as a facet of anti-semitism. The practice was not widespread among Arabs, Pharsi or other semites till fairly recently. They picked it up from European and American anti-semites: Neither Harry Elmer Barnes nor David Hoggan, Paul Rassinier, Arthur Butz, David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Willis Carto, James J Martin, Samuel Konkin, Bradley Smith, James Keegstra, Ernst Zundal, Richard Verral, Fred Leuchter, Ernst Nolte, Arno Mayer, Masanori Nishioka were of middle eastern origin, yet all were noted to be Holocaust deniers before the first Islamic preacher: Turkish Harun Yahya came out publicly denying the occurrence of the Holocaust in 1996.

The State department long before Obama buddy/buddied these fools used to expose their horrific beliefs of superiority and self-righteousness by belittling these men in public. Exposing the denial that genocide was perpetrated in world dealings was extremely demeaning and degrading to the Mullahs. Its soul purpose was to keep their world conquering agenda from becoming what Obama has done to it today. 9-11 was simply the radicals move to become meaningful again, and it worked.

That's as close to meaningless as I think you're capable of producing. It's relevance to this thread is ephemeral at best. Were you actually planning on discussing AGW deniers or whether or not you're actually a skeptic or whether mainstream science has done itself a huge disservice by calling you all deniers? Eh? You know, the thread TOPIC???

You are one who hasn't even a clue as to what psychological warfare can do to your opponent. Or you are purposely being deceptive to justify your behavior. As you show above it was widely used in the last 25 years by left wing activists and the Radical Islamists themselves. The psyop was very successful at cutting off Iraq and Iran until our current president embraced them and turned this degradation on those who do not approve of his globalist control fanatical views. Mann and Hansen originally used this same tactic but it didn't gain real traction until Obama and the left wing zealots tried to give it legitimacy.

The operation was indeed in use long before it was openly recognized in the early 90's

Paranoia strikes deep.

It has been clearly demonstrated that the term "holocaust denier" did not originate with an application to anyone in the middle east. I could find no application of the term to any Muslim prior to 1996. If you can do better, feel free. Besides which, the relevance of such a claim to the topic of this thread is dubious at best.

The OP suggests that the application of the term "denier" to those who deny anthropogenic global warming theory, harms the cause of such people. This sidebar on antisemitic mullahs does nothing to advance or hinder such a claim. The only purpose I can see is to give you an opportunity to bring the president into the 'debate' and demonstrate for us your religious and racial biases.

I had never made the connection between AGW denier and holocaust denier because "holocaust denier" is not a commonly used term; their simply aren't that many of them. And with so little use, there was even less need to abbreviate it to just "denier". I had NEVER seen anyone express an opinion drawing any parallels between you and holocaust deniers till your fossil fuel overlords told you to make a stink about it. Given that, in my firm opinion, your faux outrage on this topic has no valid justification and NO one has demonstrated that I receive ANY harm from the practice, I will continue to use it of those who deny AGW. Get used to it.

 

[Crick]

The MMGW crowd is indeed loosing the battle

That should have been "LOSING", not "LOOSING" and then, of course, it should have been "WINNING". Did you miss the article a week or two back that showed a good majority of Americans, including 48% of Republicans, think "something should be done" about global warming?

And what the **** does MMGW stand for? Multiply Massive Global Warming? Mickey Mouse Global Warming? I'll just have to look it up.
Well, three different search engines returned "Making Middle Grades Work" as their first choice. One of the three returned, as its third choice "Man Made Global Warming".

I like it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The left wits are so busy rewriting the climactic record that they are destroying all of their previous lies ground work. This house of cards is about to implode.

With the Earth showing up as the biggest denier of the AGW cult, it wasn't long before they had to manipulate the data, in an effort to not be shown as snake oil salesmen.

THAT was a damn fine observation!

They are pissed off at planet Earth for being an AGW (climate change) DENIER!

Just like skeptics, the earth does not deny or stop change. Its the type of change that it is doing that is showing the alarmist liars. So the term denier is not applicable to either one. hmmmmmmmmmmm

the next moron left wit to call me a 'denier' is going to be challenged to provide proof of their allegations and justification for their use of the term!

The adjustments made to the major datasets have done nothing but make them more accurate. The earth is not denying AGW, it is a planet full of evidence that AGW is precisely what is taking place. You are not a skeptic. You are... wait for it... a DENIER.

what did they do invent a time machine go back to 1900 and take temperture with the technology we have today instead of a thermometer? More accurate my ass.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The MMGW crowd is indeed loosing the battle

That should have been "LOSING", not "LOOSING" and then, of course, it should have been "WINNING". Did you miss the article a week or two back that showed a good majority of Americans, including 48% of Republicans, think "something should be done" about global warming?

And what the **** does MMGW stand for? Multiply Massive Global Warming? Mickey Mouse Global Warming? I'll just have to look it up.
Well, three different search engines returned "Making Middle Grades Work" as their first choice. One of the three returned, as its third choice "Man Made Global Warming".

I like it.

why don't you ask those same Americans should we "do something" about that killer asteroid that might hit us in 2029?

Doomsday Asteroid Bigger Than Expected

 

[Crick]

An article about the poll:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/u...action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html?_r=0

The poll was a bit more extensive than our brief comments might lead us to believe. Here are the poll questions and their results.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/29/us/global-warming-poll.html

 

[Crick]

There are a number of things to note in that poll, but among them I found interesting the number of people who say they prefer a candidate who believes AGW and will act against it. A bit further down, the difference between people's views on Democrats and Republicans regarding their AGW views and priorities is interesting. The idea that the general public lines up with Republican climate denialism is certainly not supported by this poll.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The left wits are so busy rewriting the climactic record that they are destroying all of their previous lies ground work. This house of cards is about to implode.

With the Earth showing up as the biggest denier of the AGW cult, it wasn't long before they had to manipulate the data, in an effort to not be shown as snake oil salesmen.

THAT was a damn fine observation!

They are pissed off at planet Earth for being an AGW (climate change) DENIER!

Except he has never observed what he's claiming.

Bullshit. And the Earth is not a "he" or a "she" in reality. Gaia, of course, is a different story.

Get back to the AGW Church, you silly AGW Faith Based Zealot.

 

[Crick]

I am not a Gaia advocate and I used the pronoun "he", twice, in reference to poster BillyBoy. Do you have reading problems? Don't be embarrassed. It's never to late to learn.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I am not a Gaia advocate and I used the pronoun "he", twice, in reference to poster BillyBoy. Do you have reading problems? Don't be embarrassed. It's never to late to learn.

All you AGW Faither twats are indeed worshipping Gaia, you idiot. You are just too simple minded to realize it.

And the use of the indefinite pronoun "he" requires that you have first identified the subject. Otherwise, you pathetic simpleton, the inference it that it refers back to the last proper noun/subject.

I suspect it is already far too late for a bubbling moron like you to learn anything.

Go back to Gaia Temple, *****.

 

[Crick]

Billy Boy has never observed the Earth's warming stopping and he has never observed any unjustified alteration of temperature records. If you'd like to show us evidence that he HAS, feel free to bring it forward. Simply asserting such with not even an effort at substantiation is utterly worthless. And posts with nothing but personal insult and invective - as were your last two - are a clear violation of the new policies for this forum.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Billy Boy has never observed the Earth's warming stopping and he has never observed any unjustified alteration of temperature records. If you'd like to show us evidence that he HAS, feel free to bring it forward. Simply asserting such with not even an effort at substantiation is utterly worthless. And posts with nothing but personal insult and invective - as were your last two - are a clear violation of the new policies for this forum.

Once again, the moron Creep -- err -- Crick addresses someone (logic suggests that it was trying to address me) but doesn't bother to indicate it clearly.

My prior post, you dimwit, did contain stuff other than insults and so forth. It attempted to educate you a little bit on the proper use of the indefinite pronoun, for instance. (Your prior posting effort had not been on that same elevated plane.)

Anyway, if the day ever comes where you practice what you preach, i might begin to think about valuing what you have to say. Until then, not so much.

To get back to the topic, we all know already, that climate data has been altered and manipulated. CF, for example, has offered proof of the falsification of data many times.

It is not necessary in these discussions to provide proof of that each and every time one posts. You certainly (once again) don't practice as you preach. There's a word for that and for you: Hypocrite.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Billy Boy has never observed the Earth's warming stopping and he has never observed any unjustified alteration of temperature records. If you'd like to show us evidence that he HAS, feel free to bring it forward. Simply asserting such with not even an effort at substantiation is utterly worthless. And posts with nothing but personal insult and invective - as were your last two - are a clear violation of the new policies for this forum.

Once again, the moron Creep -- err -- Crick addresses someone (logic suggests that it was trying to address me) but doesn't bother to indicate it clearly.

My prior post, you dimwit, did contain stuff other than insults and so forth. It attempted to educate you a little bit on the proper use of the indefinite pronoun, for instance. (Your prior posting effort had not been on that same elevated plane.)

Anyway, if the day ever comes where you practice what you preach, i might begin to think about valuing what you have to say. Until then, not so much.

To get back to the topic, we all know already, that climate data has been altered and manipulated. CF, for example, has offered proof of the falsification of data many times.

It is not necessary in these discussions to provide proof of that each and every time one posts. You certainly (once again) don't practice as you preach. There's a word for that and for you: Hypocrite.

I don't think it is necessary to call crick names, just point out the facts that they alterd data to justify the models they wanted to see. That's not science, it's something we do in manufacturing to bull shit the customer.