Prev: Anyone knowledgeable about lowest viscosity fluid at roomtemperature and atmospheric pressure?
Next: What is "kibology", anyway? I have looked it up in my dictionary...
From: josephus on 30 Mar 2010 08:56
Benj wrote:

> On Mar 29, 6:33 pm, "Eric Gisin" <er...(a)nospammail.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The original posting with responses to the top 60 talking points was released on March 25th. Now,
>>you can think about all the 104 observations.
>>
>>John Cook, a former student of physics in Australia, has constructed an interesting website trying
>>to attack the opinions of climate skeptics.
>
>
> Obviously John Cook dropped out of physics before switching to
> political science. His website if pure political propaganda with his
> so-called "points" easily refuted. You might as well just call it the
> IPCC "greens" website. It'll make a great "scientific" link for Sam
> the Sham, I'm sure. This is all about as "true" as IPCC chairman
> Rajendra Pachauri is a "climate scientist". Ask shill "Wormley" what
> his real training is. Try economist and former railroad engineer! No
> wonder he's so prone to lies. Oh wait. When he got caught lying about
> Himalayan glaciers melting he just said it was his staff's fault! Now
> there is a guy you can trust. He needs to hire The Amazing Randi to
> stump for AGW taxes.
>

just think a thinking mans TROLL.
because you commited too many kinds of logic faults.



--
ÿþI
From: Rob Dekker on 31 Mar 2010 03:13

"Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message news:213e2e61-c842-4be5-ab42-31be7edf9ed0(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 6:20 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...(a)verific.com> wrote:

> > > These AGW idiots continue to play stupid and lie their asses off.
> > > Contemptable, unprincipled bastards every single one.
> >
> > And then we have to deal with this kind of mudd slinging...
>
> Sorry Rob. If it's true it's not "mud"!
>

Sorry Benj, I've seen enough in this news group that shows who are the idiots that play stupid and lie their asses off. And it ain't
the "AGWers" like John Cook who uses scientific findings to show that the deniers' claims are unfounded.

Rob


From: Dawlish on 31 Mar 2010 05:06
On Mar 31, 1:14 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 6:48 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...(a)verific.com> wrote:
>
> > This is in sharp contrast to SkepticalScience.com, who list a reference to a scientific paper with all of their arguments.
>
> > And that, my dear friends, is the difference between a scientifically well-founded blog post, and one that is only based on personal opinion.
>
> Total bullshit. It's the difference to money-backed professional
> propaganda and amateurs and people without financial backing trying to
> bring some truth into the discussion.  IPCC has claimed that the world
> has rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather from AGW.  But the
> paper they used to make that claim when finally released to the public
> stated: " We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical
> relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic
> losses." Is that YOUR idea of "scientifically well-founded
> conclusions"?  And we can go on and on with examples like this. We
> don't even have to refer to the climategate emails!
>
> Idiot. or worse SHILL!

Always best to refer to global temperatures rather than the froth that
develops to try to deflect from them, Benj.

There's no real argument against the fact that they've risen and they
are continuing to rise, so what's causing the rise? The difficult
questions for deniers is not finding difficulties with the propriety
of the science, or the integrity of the scientists, but it is why are
temperatures so high and what's causing it. That's when the deniers
begin to get into difficulty.

Emails, websites, blogs and bloggers really don't count. The trend in
global temperatures, the present levels and the likely future path is
what counts.

If what you feel about the froth counts more, tell us why?
From: Marvin the Martian on 31 Mar 2010 12:07
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:52:54 -0500, josephus wrote:

>
> so peer review is fake and justifys your mudslinging.

Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate
science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many conspirators.

> since the papers in question were peer reviewed are you tring to claim
> they were politically motivated? like the idiots that claim the moon
> landing was fake. how do you have a conspiracy that is secret and
> concerns 1/2 million people? even 25000 people cannot keep a secret.

Uh, they weren't able to keep it a secret.
From: Rob Dekker on 2 Apr 2010 23:29

"Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message news:ts2dnUcZa4re7i7WnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:52:54 -0500, josephus wrote:
>
>>
>> so peer review is fake and justifys your mudslinging.
>
> Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate
> science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many conspirators.

Really ? international fraud was committed ?
I must have missed the memo.

>
>> since the papers in question were peer reviewed are you tring to claim
>> they were politically motivated? like the idiots that claim the moon
>> landing was fake. how do you have a conspiracy that is secret and
>> concerns 1/2 million people? even 25000 people cannot keep a secret.
>
> Uh, they weren't able to keep it a secret.

A conspiracy revealed ?
I must have missed another memo.

In which court of law was this case tried and which judge ruled here ? Judge Monckton ? Or judge Fox News ? Or judge Inhofe ?

Rob


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Anyone knowledgeable about lowest viscosity fluid at roomtemperature and atmospheric pressure?
Next: What is "kibology", anyway? I have looked it up in my dictionary...