Regarding “consensus” of global warming / “climate change” fabricators.

I went to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) website.

I have stated many times the dem/lib fabrications and pretentious “science” does not intimidate me. Spending my time fighting dummies and liars, sadly drains my time, but it must be done.

I always close with a bit of regret at being a bully to the child-ids that pretend to be scientists because all they can do is lie, and get caught.

If I could, I would kick the shit out of every single one of those lying, treasonous bastards. Oh, I do it here, every time I refute their lies, and rebuke their fraud and stupidity.

So, I looked at the one that looked the most intimidating. It claimed, Thirty-One Top Scientific Societies Speak with One Voice on Global Climate Change”.

The article starts with, <i><b>“In a consensus letter to U.S. policy-makers, a partnership of 31 leading non-partisan scientific societies…”</i></b>

A consensus letter? This is double talk. A consensus letter that describes a consensus taken from a letter of a consensus…. with no data.

There is nothing except a group of partisan frauds (always the big lie- paid for by democrat party/liberal goons that steal money from Americans and then write letters).

Without a reason or foundation for a claim, the consensus writers stated something had to be done about a something that has no reality. But did the consensus writers write the letter? Do the consensus writers exist?

The article continues with the same dodging and weaving, and avoidance of real material and data. There is no evidence if there is no data. There is no evidence if there is no measurement. There is no evidence if there is no study, or reference to a study, or a thought of a study. This whole fraudulent business of global hoaxing is a dem/lib denial of work. These buffoons, no names, simply sit around and write consensus letters based on nothing. But did they write the letter? Where are the names and references?

I read the whole article. There is not a single reference to a study or a shred, or a tittle; not even a line of notes from a study.

There is a reference to, <i><b>“…independent lines of evidence…”.</i></b>

The second paragraph is unbelievably un-scientific. What moronic scientist would spout about recommendations without a reason?

The second paragraph begins, <i><b>““Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver,” the collaborative said in its 28 June letter to Members of Congress.”</i></b>

There was no such letter sent to congress.

How about this overgeneralized pretense at research? Try this for clarity of how un-scientific that sentence reveals these morons truly are.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that men over 10 feet tall, are clearly on the rise. Or, Observations throughout the world make it clear that global cooling is occurring. Without a shred of evidence, or a reference to a recorded “observation”, my silly statement is as powerful and credible as the buffoons collectively pretending science. But, again, who are these societies? Did “they” actually write the letter, or the consensus?

Rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by humans… is a lie.

What greenhouse gases do humans emit, oxygen? That is a gas emitted by a greenhouse full of plans that convert carbon dioxide to oxygen.

Humans do not emit greenhouse gases. Greenhouses do not emit greenhouse gases.

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. It is not even a rational fabrication that dem/libs have fashioned that proves there is such a thing. It is all speculation, not even a theory yet because it has not been written in a hypothesis or theory: never studied. It has been modeled by politically biased (paid) and partisan frauds (paid democrat party left-wing extremists).

Then the sentence ends with, <i><b>“…the collaborative said…”.</i></b>

A consensus letter with nothing, says nothing, Scientists can say something, but there is not a single name attached. So who is saying?

Go, my fellow Americans and readers; go to a scientific journal or magazine, or site, and look at any article. Look at the references. All have references. A scientist worth anything builds as big a foundation as possible of stable, referenced, factors and variables by referencing studies and conclusions of other scientists. Some real studies have longer lists of references than the article itself. A real scientist revels in his or her connections to references and data and hence, reality. There is not even one single reference in all these bogus sites to study, science, a scientist, a scientific research or variable. There is absolutely nothing to the bogus fabrications found at AAAS, NASA, NOAA, WMO, and TCCS (The Center for Climate and Security). In all those sites I found not one single reference to a study, a scientific variable or even anomaly. The “science” is so bad, these buffoons do not even reference margin of error.

I found nothing on any of the aforementioned, bogus sites, from which a real scientist could establish a foundation for a solid control group or solid control data. Please, my fellow Americans and truth-seekers, go to these sites and find data. Without data there is no conclusions for anything. How can science promote a change when the change requires prior knowledge and desired position? There is nothing to base these bogus claims upon, except political solutions. The political solutions benefit only one class, not We, the People.

Any scientist worth an ounce of credibility surely wants his or her name attached to profound claims of science. Why is there not a single name attached? These scientists do NOT exist. They are names of weather reporters, experts in other fields that have no knowledge their names are being used to promote the words of a few lying liberal writers and fabricators.

We are talking about 5 organizations with multiples of people involved, one would think, but of 5 organizations, all we have is a report by a biased “reporter” claiming 31 organizations collaborated to produce a consensus, based on nothing. That is the REALITY of this whole global hoaxing situation.

What are all these political solutions based on? Are they observations but no measurements; observations but no pretest and post test? All this is based on observations made by nobody. There is nobody in the global hoaxing community that can be called a scientist when there is nobody in the global hoaxing community that can show a scientific reference.

Of all the consensuses, “studies”, “papers”, reports”, “collaborations”, “letters”, there is not one reference to a single measurement. There are conclusions based on absolutely nothing observable because there is nothing to be observed: nothing the dem/lib global hoaxers want made public. In all these papers, consensuses, etc., what was observed? i ask. Show us.

The paragraph ends with, “This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.” What real scientist reviews a “scientific paper” by a non scientist? A fool or paid interloper, fraud. What true scientist reviews a consensus letter with no scientists attached, no references attached or included, and no data? What scientist would put his or her name to a bogus paper? A real scientist would lose credibility. It is no different than Michael Jordan being asked to review basket ball skills of local soccer sideliner, Pete Bromley, who has never played soccer or basketball in his life. Jordan would laugh. Real scientists, when asked to “review” the bogus, goofy, silly, fabricated nonsense  of statements, claims and pretentious science of NOAA, WMO, AAAS, NASA, TCCS, and other political deflections, do not even bother laughing. 

If Jordan were to critique Pete, Jordan would be a laughing stock, and so it is in the “global hoaxing community” where non-scientists, that do not exist, are written into existence by poor writers of global hoaxing fiction, and real scientists recognize absolutely nothing scientific and worthy of comment.

We must ask, to what does our silly “writer” of this “consensus letter” refer when he/she/it/“they” write, “Independent lines of evidence”? The circular argument itself is poorly constructed.

Let us start with Peer-reviewed science.

What science is peer-reviewed? The term “peer reviewed” is a dem/lib fabrication, to begin with: an attempt to garner credibility where none can possibly exist. It is two devils taping wings to each others’ backs, and both claiming the other is an angel. “Peer reviewed” is a way for bogus scientists, realistically nothing more than political agents of propaganda, to deflect from real science that dem/lib political activists are afraid will easily be refuted or proven false. “Don’t waste your time”, the dem/libs say, “looking at the water levels of the past one hundred years. We have already done that and you can trust us because we have great political (did I say that?) solutions for you to live by”. ‘Don’t look in that room, its a mess. Trust me, there is nothing to see, especially your stolen trillion dollar stimulus money, or the gold we bought with it.’ Don’t look here or there for the “lost” emails. We have already taken care of the problems, and it won’t happen again. Trust me, hillary the vampire claims.

If one were to write about results of a study, there is no credibility in the results of the study being reviewed by another of the same study. A real scientist publishes results in many sources and exposes it to review by any and all. A real scientist welcomes criticism, but not these devils of the global hoaxing “community”. They want real scientists, and exposers of dem/lib fraud, self included, silenced by political solutions.

This claim that “peer-reviewed” is some superior form of scrutiny is a fraud. It is another liberal stupidism to give themselves credibility where none is due.

Which peer reviewed Einstein’s work?

Peers don’t review others’ work.

Did Nicola Tesla review Einstein? Did Einstein review Tesla?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s