MORE REGARDING MY 3/3/18 COMMENTARY, “OCEAN FLOOR SINKING”

More regarding my commentary of 3/2/18, “Ocean floor sinking”

I had written and published a commentary refuting the moronic idea that the ocean floor is sinking. It occurred to me that I missed a major point. If the ocean floor is sinking, dropping, where is it going? That was a part of my original commentary, but there is another related point to consider.

If the ocean floor is sinking, dropping “down”, from what relative point is it dropping? There must be a measurement and comparison of pre-test conditions and post test: science.

Is the ocean floor sinking with respect to the land, the shores around the world? If it is, then water is not rising. If the ocean floor is sinking, then the ocean water level at the shoreline is dropping, not rising.

Where is the benchmark, for measuring such changes in elevations and depths? Non-existent? Hmmm, do the dem/lib dimwits even know what a benchmark is? Not very science-ish, is it?

Or, the ocean floor is sinking and water is rising, keeping the level with respect to the land, around the world, the same, constant. The dumb bolshevik manipulators of reality make neither claim. They just fabricate and lie. Who went to the ocean floor and measured the depth, and from where?

Do you see, that I almost made the argument for the climate-hoaxers by stating the water levels have remained the same, but it is because the volume of water has increased. The dementocrats and la-la-land liberals, spewing grotesque globalist/bolsheievik fraud, do not have the capacity for intellectual honesty or study. What a bunch of illiterate, ignorant boneheads.

Do you see how stupid dem/lib, progressive/bolshevik, unsubstantiated headline claims are?

It is intellect that prompts questions, not lock-step, droning, liberal news and dementocracy.

Think! Ask questions, why…

PART 2: THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CLIMATE CHANGE, GLOBAL WARMING, “SCIENCE”

Original publication on SLC Craigslist, June 15, 2016, in response to a post by Utardia, a “writer”, regurgitator of marxist/liberal climate dogma and deception.

Part two, applying science to compare and contrast a democracy versus a constitutional republic.

Do we need to define “rational”?

A witness to anything helps clarify and also helps debunk. Clarity, truth is the goal.

When we look at the Constitution and the Amendments we find standard for many things.

A standard establishes common communication. Standards in science, must also be established otherwise we have no comparisons, no observations, and nothing obvious. Without the obvious and irrefutable, the burden of proof of science is not met, and the doubt rules.

It must be so because everything at any given point is based upon and operates around established truths: truths that for the moment seem to explain and predict.

Real science does not ask people to adjust to something not proved or unreal. Science does not, for example, ask people to prepare for dragon fire that does not exist, and the same is prevalent in all science, including unsubstantiated, standard-less global hoaxing.

Why do We, the People, have a Bill of Rights? Is the Bill of Rights for government? Government is a thing. It is a thing, like a tool, used by We, the People. Government, in America, a Constitutional Republic, is not a tool for politicians to use. The Bill of Rights establishes, quite clearly, that the amendments require burdensome effort to change. OUR traditions and OUR working laws, today, now, cannot be changed without due proof of necessity.

The burden of proof is that law requires authority; authority granted by We, the People, NOT government, to prove need.

Take the right to be presumed innocent before the law. This simple amendment: this one in particular, establishes that the individual is supreme. The Rights in the Bill of Rights, are for the individual, not a conglomerate government collective of rulers.

The burden of proof, wherein guilt must be proved without doubt, is what sets every single person in America in the same status before the law. So none, in any position, can suppress the law, and create a slave, or a slave class by extortion of law.

The burden of proof applies in all things in a free society.

Realistically, there are few truly free societies in the whole history of the world, but we can see two from which We, the People, can draw experience and guidance.

The Magna Carta, an Anglo origination in 1215 England, was the beginning of a freedom the world had never seen. It was a freedom for all peoples, not just a political class. In fact it was designed to oppose and control a political class.

You could call monarchy, dictatorship, and oligarchy, a political class. No matter what the pretentious name, a political class is a ravaging organization exploiting, using, and killing slaves itself, themselves, create.

We, in America have not fallen into slavery. Slavery has been thrust upon us. Slavery was created by diabolical, psychopathic “people”. Every single democrat politico in America, is a psychopathic monarchist. Heavy claim, but to actually join the democrat party one must surely know the democrat party is involved in a push for dictatorial oligarchy. Nobody falls into slavery by default. Nobody falls into a position of being a slave owner or master, by mistake either.

The second I know I have ill-gotten gains, taken by force or legal force, is the second I know I have unjustly profited by someone’s efforts. That is theft: it is slavery.

The burden of proof in science, is no different. It is meant to prove beyond doubt, that something is true.

How can one be sure of truth if it is not proven beyond doubt? The foundation for rationality is truth beyond doubt.

A scientist is required to make a claim of suspected truth.

I believe, for example, that coffee makes one jittery. I make a claim, called a thesis or hypothesis. A hundred, a thousand people can refute my claim, and do so rationally. All they have to say, is they don’t believe it. Their opinion is valid as opinion. A million people can refute my claim and my claim is nothing, yet.

If I were to take these million people, subject half of them to drinking one cup of coffee in the morning, while half get no coffee, and then I measure and quantify the observations, collecting them into obvious results, then I have exercised scientific methodology.

In this case where utardia claims I need to provide proof when it is he/her/it that makes the challenge against established science, utardia misses the establishment of reality, as usual, and thus remains in a state of suspended reality, refusing to change to the obvious.

I am not required to bend to fantasy while already living in established reality.

But this is the fraud the dem/lib/progressives continually try to ram down Conservative America’s throat.

I have no burden to believe a single thing utardia or any of the global hoaxers, I mean warmers, claim until I see rational measurements, results taken from the obvious and irrefutable.

We have no results of anything until something is done to produce results. Making a model does not qualify. Making predictions without measurements does not qualify.

I can claim europeans have large noses. How do I measure large? Is “large” a comparative? If so, what is the standard upon which I decide to employ? Is my standard rational, or noticeable, measurable?

If I claim europeans have large noses, is it logical I describe how much bigger they are? Is it logical and fair that I describe bigger? Is bigger longer, wider, taller, more sunk in the head?

The burden of proof is all mine.

All the sophist pretenses by dem/libs, utardia sub-intelligent dog, for example, pretending to be smart, does not provide a shred of evidence and certainly meets no burden of proof, or even a simple claim or theory to precede finding and proving the hopeful obvious. The dem/libs have never made it to the first stages of science: theory, hypothesis and intelligent claim.

Who are the dem/libs trying to deceive?

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CLIMATE CHANGE, GLOBAL WARMING, “SCIENCE”

Original publication on SLC Craigslist, June 15, 2016, in response to a post by Utardia, a “writer”, regurgitator of marxist/liberal climate dogma.

The burden of scientific proof rests with the prosecution. There is two basic results of science: proving a theory or hypothesis, or failing to prove a theory or hypothesis.

Utardia, that dimwit lying crap-superstar, claims I need to provide proof. Is that proof of a negative? Is that proof that where I stand exists?

A tradition is immovable until it is movable, by something new, and obvious. Global hoaxing, I mean warming, is magnificently NOT obvious, except to dictatorial goons making big bucks off others’ fears, and obvious to bogus scientists extrapolating something from clearly NOTHING. When I say nothing I mean no data, no pre-test, no post test, no control group, no measurements, but lots of polluting and “reinterpreting” standard, immovable data.

It is all a fraud, a lie based on imaginary demons and fire breathing dragons, heating up the world. Where are the dragons other than the nether reaches of political scientists’ ever-augmenting ethereal interpretations of imaginary science from cosmological shock troops?

I might add that all those innumerable “climate scientists” do not exist. There are writers galore, political puppets who quote each others’ papers and stories of studies.

“The oceans will rise by 20 feet by the year 2015”, 144,000 Witnesses of Jehovah will be taken heavenward in 1918, I mean 1933, I mean 1975, I mean 1999, I mean okay who is this Jehovah guy”? “The climate system will kill millions by 2012”. Pictures of moose dying, deserts and dead fish on the shores all cause world-wide stench by 2010”. Obama will turn back the rise of the oceans by shear will power.

Some will argue he did it. Then why do we need anything else? Why do we need political exertion, taxation and subservience to the democrat party and liberals when obama can do it all?

Come on people, the oceans have not risen, temperatures have dropped. It is colder today, it cools off at night, and summers are shorter. Fewer people die from heat waves today than they did 20, 30 and 40 years ago.

We stand on solid ground of tradition. Somebody designed a thermometer well over a century ago, and that same thermometer is the standard.

What is the standard?

Water boils at 212 degrees at sea level, and freezes at 32 degrees. There is no change in that. That is the standard. Who will challenge that? Who would even think that this fact is not one of the world’s most reliable templates? 

Why do global hoaxers, I mean warmers, even attempt to change these standards?

We can always make new thermometers at the boiling point, and and it is still the standard because it is still the boiling point and we design and change OURSELVES to that fact.

Global hoaxers, I mean warmers, have been trying to change We, the People, and reality to their inconsistent and shifting predictions. They have no standards because they are sloppy, pretentious, anti-science comic-cons. Where is the data?

Data is not data unless it has a standard and a means of measuring preconditions and new, or changing conditions. This is science, the beginning of science.

How do we measure time? We measure it by change. We make a 24 hour day of a time frame between sunrise and another sunrise. We don’t dictate that we want 24 hours in a day, and make the planet rotate different. But that is the approach global hoaxers, I mean warmers, have taken.

We do not look at the sunrise and try to slow it down so we can have 25 hour days. That is ludicrous. It borders on insanity if not full blown lunacy. But that is what global hoaxers, I mean warmers, are trying to do with no data, no pre-test, no post-test, no measurements, and no sea level markers. They have not even tried to present this simple experiment because it is a failure every time.

Surely, somewhere along the way, maybe 10 years ago, maybe 20 or 30 years ago, someone, a real scientist, must have surely stuck a stick in the water and measured ocean levels regularly to show ocean-level rise. Why has no scientist presented this data? Would this data be irrefutable if it could be found to show a rise in ocean levels? Absolutely, and I would concur. But there is not one single reference to a stick in a rock anywhere? Absolutely nothing! NOAA, for example, has absolutely nothing that represents a stick in a rock, or anything an intellect could imagine and design to measure change.

So, I ask, are oceans rising? Surely it must be obama that stopped the rise, with just his word.

How much did it rise before he made the promise? ZERO! That was a  pretty safe bet for him, was it not.

It must be zero, otherwise dem/lib politico/scientists would have shown us. NOTHING!

The burden of proof is always on the upstarts, the new science, the new theories and hypotheses.

I am a cop, standing in the middle of the street, directing traffic. Who will argue that traffic flows at my standard, stable, already existing presence?

It takes a pre-test to assert the variables for the study, and it takes measurements of some sorts (maybe time lapse of driver response due to traffic officer’s directions, as compared to time lapse when traffic officer is not present).

You see, dear reader, the burden of proof is not only on the new science, or new theory or new hypothesis to show a change, but it is a heavy burden to first show the standards by which change will be measured and then presented as illuminating.

There is nothing obvious in dem/lib global hoaxing, I mean warming, except the raging lunacy of pseudo-scientists fabricating fear and catastrophe from lunatics’ imaginations, all done for money.

It is not my burden to provide truth to an existing science. The burden of proof, in science and almost everything, lies solely with the party making new claims or challenging established thought and tradition. The burden of proof lies with those trying to show change. Science is change, measurable change. If it is not measured there is no data, no measurable change and, hence, no science.

Global hoaxing, I mean warming, is the new claim of change, without a shred or attempt to show the change.

I see it this way. When I was a boy, some days when I would arrive at home after school I would walk in the door and smell baking. Imagine I walked in the house, and my mother says, “do you smell that?” Smell what, I ask. “The baking bread, she replies.” No.

“Well, I smell it and it is good”, she claims. Hmmm I do not smell anything.

“No matter”, she says, “will you wash the bread pans please?”

What bread pans? “The ones I baked the bread with”, she she says.

Ok, I guess you see bread pans.

“Of course I do”, she emphatically states, “right there on the counter by the sink.”

Okay, I believe you. Here I am, washing bread pans.

When I am finished washing imaginary bread pans, I sit at the kitchen table and my mother then places an empty plate before me and says, “enjoy the freshly baked bread”.

Okay mom.

In this anecdote, would you think my mother had lost something? Why do global hoaxers try the same with you and I? Are they insane or dishonest?

Global hoaxing, I mean warming, has the burden of proof, and that is why it fails so miserably. There is not even an attempt to provide pre-test conditions, post-test, hypothesis. My mother could have placed store-bought bread on plate, and tried to convince me she had baked it. Without the pre-test conditions: aroma of freshly baked bread, used bread pans and flour on the counter, I am not convinced. The global hoaxing, I mean warming, community, that does not exist except in papers by writers, tries the same. They show nothing with which a comparison, or change can be made.

I come home from school occasionally to the smell of freshly baked brread, and that is a change from the day before, and many days prior. Where is the change in the global hoaxing, I mean warming, claims?

Do we remember our science projects in grade school? The lab paper had a section for observation.

Today’s global hoaxers, I mean warmers, cannot even present “observations”. They make all kinds of claims and protests. Well, they try to present observations but any so-called observations I have investigated are always observations of something else, they claim is connected to itself. They present fear, based upon imaginary dragons fabricated for pseudo-scientists’ financial gain; fabricated by monster-imagining writers.

After the fact observations are nothing if there is no pre-fact observations. The global hoaxers never provide pre-test observations, only claims.

Where are the observations, measurements, standard by which change can be observed?

How can global hoaxers, I mean warmers, make observations without anything to observe, and how can they draw conclusions without anything to observe taken from nothing presented? There is an incredible lack of connection in all this global hoaxing “concluding” without establishing and observing.

Did the morons, for example, observe dying polar bears? Where?

Did the boneheads observe a rise in the sea level of the stick in the rock on the shore? Did the rock move? Did the boneheads move the rock? Who would do such a grievous assault on science, fact and truth itself? Liars, with a political motive. Welcome to global hoaxing!

It is not my responsibility to prove another’s theory wrong, it is the party challenging established thought and tradition that is responsible for proving truth and credibility of his or her claims and theories. Until he or she provides data, measurements, clinical and or laboratory work, the theories remain theories.

The change of scientific belief is not a fact until it is actually factual. All the global hoaxers have is fear, fabrication, and quoting other’s fears and fabrications: all for money.

The NOAA site is a fantasy of global hoaxers, I mean warmers, continually augmenting fear from fear, and from third party fear and fabrication. It is easy to see when they start talking in circles.

Science is proved, often, when scientists and the free market are convinced. I have used the invention of the rifle as an example.

When rifling was first theorized and explained, denying a better flight by a rifled bullet compared to a musket ball was accepted. That is science. After obvious proofs and evidence: observations of rifle accuracy compared with musket accuracy, denying rifles provide a better, more accurate flight, was considered rifling denial. The deniers did not last long. They were killed in the battle lines because they refused to adapt to the science: the proof by observing pre-test and post-test. They refused to change their views to fact and reality.

It is logic retardation that dimwit utardia tries to present nothing to the public as a rational argument. Global hoaxing presents observation-less observations: unsubstantiated claims.

Again, where are the observations? Where are the obvious results, of something, anything, even attempts to lie or deceive?

We are not asking for fear mongering, predictions, models or quotes from others without the necessary facets of science. We want observations and the obvious, nothing else will do. We want IRREFUTABLE science.

97% OF SCIENTISTS AGREE, THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED (A CRAIGSLIST RESPONSE)

10,883 out of 10,885 is not 97 percent.

Written by scientists or dem/libs?

So there are two scientists of dissenting opinions?

Only two? What are their names?

That is so funny. These morons expect people to believe there are two that don’t believe global warming is a hoax?

I thought the number was 97 percent.

If these buffoons are going to lie, at least get the lies close to accurate.

Out of 10,885 “scientists” (laugh), 97 percent would be 10,558.45m, leaving 27 dissenters. Where did the other 25 go? Did they vanish, with the 10,883, or did they not exist to begin with, like the 10,883 global hoaxers, I mean warmers?

Do I seem afraid to look at this objectively, honestly, rationally?

Really, tell us which lie it is, 97 percent of all democrat party-paid scientists agree, or is it that only two don’t agree?

Ask your doctor if paying him or her for services not rendered is right for you. Ask your doctor if paying for services not rendered is right for him or her. Ask your global hoaxer, I mean warmer if your sacrifice but not his/her/its, is right for the planet.

That’s too funny. Such a boring moronic conflict of interest this site has never seen, and it can only come from a lunatic liberal from la-la-land.

10,883 scientists?

What are their names?

That is funny. Really, who are they? Are they nameless fabrications from the lunatic leaps of the lost in la-la-land liberal mind?

Which mind? Who collected the names?

Who did the survey?

Where is the survey information?

Anyone that sponsors a survey wants the information published. Where is the survey?

Where is the publication?

Where is the list of names?

Morons!

Tell us. Is there a list in Scientific American?

Is there a list of names in Popular Science?

Is there a list of names in who’s making money from the dem/lib trillion dollar stimulus?

Anybody that expends that much effort, to survey that many people, certainly knows their reputation and credibility are questionable until the burden of proving their hypothesis is correct.

At the worst they want their information published or it is nothing.

Where is the raw data?

Who are these “scientists”?

Ok, maybe a different approach would work.

Who are the two that do not agree?

Where can we find them?

You see, dear reader, the liberal rats will not even mention their names because we would see a whole community of consistency, opposing global hoaxing, I mean warming.

You can go to petitionproject.org and see the names of the 31,487 scientists who agree, global hoaxing, I mean warming, is a hoax.

Oh, but wait. If we give the loser-libbies, the math retards, another chance maybe we can find the 10,883 lost global hoaxing, I mean warming, scientists that agree.

Petition project.org lists 31,487 scientists. The total is 31,487.

If we add the 10,883 to that number we have 42,372 scientists who believe global warming/climate change is a hoax. Please, serve yourself with rfact, truth, and reality. Go to the site and pick a nam. You will find a real person, while the 10,883 cannot be found, except for a handful I mention in a different commentary.

Of these 10,883 who “believe” in peter pan….I mean never-never land, I mean global hoaxing, I mean, math, a little over 200 of them, actually exist and can be found on the list of the la-la-land liberal 10,883 consensus of science. How solid, is that consensus if 200 of 10,883 exist? Hmmm, let’s do the math, real science:  about 2%.

The consensus is worth about 2% of reality, truth and integrity. That barely meets the requirements for margin of error, much less margin of correct hypothesis or theory, or science.

Boy, this new math by these liberal super intellects, is tough.

In fact, the percentage is not even close. In fact the percentage that believe is less than 50 percent, making the loser libbies, AGAIN, the VAAAAAAAAST minority.

Woo hoo, that’s close to 97 percent, if we take a 300 percent margin of error.

Margin of error: a little tough for poopy pantser utardidiot to figure out. A normal scientific margin of error is about 2 to 4 percent: unless you are a dem/lib peter pan.

Really, he could fly, if he existed. Hmm, existence, kind of a big, important factor.

The loser libbies, taking a mid range margin of error of 3%, are off by more than 33 times a normal margin of error, 33 times as much as their own margin of actuality.

WOW! That is some kind of nightmarish math.

But, tell us why the global hoaxers, I mean warmers, want our compliance.

Tell us why the global hoaxers, I mean warmers, want We, the People to surrender OUR rights and freedoms, OUR hard earned cash, cars and heated homes?

And to whom do they want these things surrendered, to those who have not given up these monstrous planet-killing toxins?

This dem/lib, progressive/bolshevik hypocrisy is deadly when we consider that 300 million Americans could be out of heat for the winters ahead, while the global hoaxing, I mean warming, pigs live lives of luxury and warmth.

It is potential genocide, by a bunch of math-retarded psychos.

And if their math is so bad in plain sight, how bad is all their math?

Maybe the reality is that we have global cooling. Trends, 30,000 scientists, common sense and reality indicate cooling.

Cartoons, fabrications with cool lines and colors, and lies do not make truth.

Fabricating numbers that do not match does not make truth or fact.

Again, who are these 10,883 scientists? What are their names? I crack me up.

Show us the list. How about utardia just show us a reference to the survey or company that collected the “data”?

Who did the survey, NOAA that cannot get the terminology correct? Morons!

Funny.

If I could draw a cartoon I would draw two white, old, men Hillary and moochelle oafama, riding a donkey backwards, claiming they are the 97 percent that “believe” global hoaxing, I mean warming, is an accurate science. The caption would be, spoken by hillary, of course, “we knowed it is currect, because we knowed it.”

Too funny, and of course, being consistent with dem/lib theology, a cartoon that insults democrats, liberals and global hoaxers, I mean warmers, makes the claim true.

Woo hoo. I win!

Yay.

We can all go home now, and turn up the heat, fire up those muscle cars, and throw our dem/lib neighbors into the streets to freeze in the “warm” winters (but not the deep freeze every year in the north east- it never happens).

If we were to stop the political/global elite from heating their homes and driving cars, the carbon print would drop massively. The is a very big return on investment, and we would beat global hoaxing, I mean warming.

YAY. We all win, and the dem/libs get what they want for others, for themselves: that they try to force upon others, not themselves.

NOT on my watch, you filthy pigs!

THE EGREGIOUS, RELIGIOUS FRAUD OF WEATHER REPORTING

The egregious, religious fraud of weather reporting.

Sunday, July 12th, 2020, the national weather service reported a heat wave from California to Texas. Are these people aware that heat waves hit these states every year? Are you aware of it?

Do you know the hottest recorded temperature is in Death Valley California about 60 years ago?

You have to think, please, for a moment? Why did you not question the news that reported highs would be about 10 to 15 degrees above average?

Do you realize that these are two different things? Why does media constantly compare unrelated variables? Are you so stupid to fall for yet another dem/lib/progressive manipulation of YOU?

How can you be so illiterate, illogical, pathetic, and unintellectual? Can you not extrapolate questions from anything? How have you become so docile, mentally, to accept the dumbest drivel, and remain so ignorant you are deftly stupid?

Daily average temperatures are different from average seasonal high temperatures..

The average high temperatures for California to Texas are about the same as they are acrosss the southern states, everywhere. 95 to 105 degree highs are not uncommon for Texas, inland california, even up to Utah.

How is the daily average determined? Do you know or do you just accept that rod of ignorance stuffed up your butt, every day, day in and day out, never ending fraud and hate-motivated manipulation of ignorant YOU?

The report was that these states could expect temperatures 10 to 15 degrees above averages. What a massively, disgusting fraud to toss at YOU.

Do you think, somehow, magically Texas and California, known for hot temperatures, will experience and record temperatures 10 to 15 degrees above the normal highs of 95 to 105 degrees? Do you, in your wildest dumbing-down, not realize that the weather services are trying to convince you temperatures will go to 110 to 120 degrees? How stupid can YOU get, and remain?

And you like, respect, trust and follow liberal/progressive democrat marxists? Do you know what marxism is, or are you totally ignorant of that ravaging ravishment of YOU, as well?

You remain stupid because you want to, and you fool yourself more than anyone else.!

HOW DOES ONE EXPLAIN THE EXTREMELY COLD 2020 WINTER AND UNUSUALLY COLD MONTH OF MARCH?

HOW DOES ONE EXPLAIN THE EXTREMELY COLD 2020 WINTER AND UNUSUALLY COLD MONTH OF MARCH?

How does one explain the extremely cold winter of 2020 and unusually cold month of March?

I call it Covid-19 distraction. Is anybody talking about oceans rising when the so-called extreme heat is gone and the cold makes the ocean level drop? It doesn’t actually do that, nobody has shown how silly climate-change hoaxing observations connect to unobserved causes.

How do dem/libs explain this unusually, very long cold spell? Covid-19, distraction. Is anybody talking about record high temperatures when we have had years of declining average temperatures, and this spring is the coldest we have experienced in decades? The average daily highs for every day in March were 10 to 20 degrees below average. Nobody has shown how silly climate change observations connect to never shown claims of effects.

How do some people explain the quiet, almost non-existent claims that we, the human race and the world have only 7 years to reverse this “heat” and climate change? Covid-19, distraction from reality.

To most people politics is not involved in everything. Most people cannot accept that there are people who will kill, slaughter, lie cheat and steal for gain. Politicians, the democrats in Congress, exploited a politically-fabricated situation and added a fat juicy raise for themselves and their minions, the unelected, non-governmental agencies and democrat/liberal/progressive institutions the democrats need to feed to stay in power.

Politicians connect all these issues and fools refuse to see how one seemingly unrelated distraction is actually the effect of a different cause from the same source.

Again, it is all politics.

Covid-19 does not exist except where it has been reported and effects of different causes have been used.

Governor Cuomo and “fredo”, his mentally deranged, goofy brother reporter suddenly started telling the truth?

Liars lie, they always lie.

There are numerous links in reporting cause of death.

When a person goes into an emergency waiting room and fills out forms there is a lull, a wait. S person in very difficult situations would be seen as in dire need and rushed to care. A person with a gunshot wound, for example, bleeding, potentially close to passing, is observed and rushed. Covid-19 “sufferers” are not seen in emergency rooms as dire need cases. The “victim” fills out forms and waits, unless of course breathing is difficult, dire need potential of dying.

A wait ensues if there are cases ahead. Eventually a doctor sees the patient but if not in emergency surgery the doctor follows protocol. Asks questions, checks lymph nodes, looks in eyes, ears, throat, checks temperature (usually nurse does that) and prescribes a “cold” remedy. The case is then reviewed and assumed Covid because the doctors are instructed, in many states and regions, to “play it safe”. Play iy safe presumptions are lazy ways of claiming overload and a political agenda. To politicians all things, all issues and calamities are connected. They are connected by politicians’ lies. But, not all politicians lie and see connections. We call these few politicians, representatives.

The third link is follow up. So many have died of covid-19, the claims report, but again, there is never a link shown and the fact is usually just a claim. Have the 8,000 or so deaths, due to covid-19, been proven as a result of covid-19, by autopsy?

The fourth link, hospitalization just in case, just to observe, and assume it is covid-19. LIES presented as physical reality, therefore presented as truth of another infection. LIES, tricks by liars.

All death is by cardiac arrest. Pneumonia causes constricted oxygen flow, and the brain and heart die. The brain can die and the body survive, if the heart keeps pumping. Covid-19 does not cause anything that makes cardia arrest. Covid-19, a ghost virus, is said to cause flu-like symptoms, which means it is a flu. A person who shows signs of carina arrest, and then has a heart stoppage, is actually in cardiac arrest. It is not kidney failure.

How many people in New York city, for example, have not died of flu because it is presumed, by a dishonest politician and his corrupt brother reporter, at a fake news agency, both “working” together (Cuomo brothers) to create an effect they cannot show is actual and cannot show is a result of the cause a handful claim exists?

The CDC can throw a picture of a “virus” and claim it is anything. Who knows the difference? Are CDC scientists like global hoaxing scientists? Maybe they are the same people who present observations and show no connection to an effect they claim exists?

Are people actually dying of this ghost-virus covid-19? No.

Quo bono? Always look for crime where someone benefits. Politicians have America in lock-down, destroying our lives and pursuit of happiness, and they gain, by writing fat raises for themselves and their supporters: fake representative processes they feign.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE CLIMATE CHANGE WRITERS AND MODELERS GONE?

Has anybody noticed the climate change people are silent? Were they told to stop writing their propaganda? We are in a terrible cold spell. This spells disaster for those who claim our world is heating up.

Are these dictators part of the cover-up of the incoming ice age?

Ok, so I embellished the incoming ice age part. Today, April 4th, 2020, we are heeding warnings across the United States for winter storms, in spring. Record cold periods do not make global warming.

I call it global warming because that is what the lying global writers and fabricators mean by climate change. I call it global warming, and not climate change, because that is what the global hoaxing goons claim is happening, without admitting it is not warming.

All conditions they claim as part of “climate change” are the same conditions they fabricated for global warming. Many years ago the global hoaxers had to disfigure the jargon, the rhetoric (lies) to suit a political agenda: control.

Today the hoaxers claim warming is the effect but do not want it identified as warming. They want you afraid of the planet heating up, but refuse to call it heating. They want the masses to believe there is something evil and sinister causing the climate to change and only the right party can fix it, with the demise and slaughter of the other party, more than half of America.

The scary, nebulous “climate change”, that nobody knows about except the mysterious writer/scientists, can only be controlled and restored with the right politics of burdensome taxation and totalitarian control, by the party of nebulous goals of everything, except politics in their favor.

None of the non-existent “climate change” community, that is actually a writers’ guild of fake science, refers to this nebulous change as “warming, even though it is warming they claim is causing the change. They prefer a more nebulous, generalization of nothing either way, warming or cooling, so they can lay claim to all information as they, themselves being the source, and thus the experts of irrefutable, unchallenged expertise, in nothing, except narcissism and control.

The writers and pretenders claim it is warming causing change but they want you to believe they are not saying it is warming, because the warming cycle cannot be shown to be true. They want the effects of their lies to manipulate the masses without being caught lying.

So the climate is changing, according to their newly found mysterious religion, but warming that produces the effects of warming, as they profess, is not warming, it is change. This is so absurd, and amazingly un-scientific, it is astounding how backward and sub-intelligent they are.

If I could describe it in terms of an ex-friend, who defriended me on farcebook because I disagreed with his regurgitations, I present an anecdote.

The dope, Adam Wills, posted a drawing of a giant wave crashing onto a coastal city, with a caption that “climate change” was going to cause massive destruction. It was a drawing. It was a cartoon showing a wave at least 200 feet high (doubling the height of a building of 10 stories). I asked Ade\am if there was any science to show an increase in wave size and volume, creating a trend that might show an increase in tidal wave sizes that could possibly create that scenario. D’uh?

It is science, math, cause and effect, but that never deterred moronic dem/libs from making silly, unscientific claims. If one observed an increase in wave height over, say, a period of 20 years, one could predict where that trend might carry tidal wave heights.

There is nothing, never has been a study showing tidal wave height change or anything related. The dem/libs have no idea how to design and execute an experiment, or just a study of existing data so to think any dem/lib moron could figure out how to determine whether the 200 foot tidal wave is a cartoon or a real projection, is absolute foolishness.

I could easily design a study of existing data, if it existed.

I would look at tidal wave heights that can be isolated to certain time periods, seasons or reliable and predictable frames.

If data existed that showed a change in tidal wave, or any wave heights, the dem/libs and their moron ghostly writers of non-science, would be all over it, if they knew what to look for: so unlikely.

But, let us suppose data existed for a monthly average wave height in the spring of a northern city that had regular freezes and thaws.

What if that wave height was 22 feet? That would be rare because even the highest waves, that do not destroy towns or cities, or ant farms, anywhere in the world, rarely reach heights over 20 feet. The biggest surfing waves in the world eclipse waves everywhere. Those big waves reach 60 feet, and that is all.

If we notice over 20 years that our 22 foot waves actually increased in height to 25 feet, that would be an increase of 7.33 percent. If that actually happened, or if only a tenth of that happened, .733 percent increase, the global hoaxing community would have a bird, but, what does it mean? Let us take an unheard and impossible amount of increase, at 7.33 parent, over 20 years and extrapolate it until we get 200 foot waves from 22 foot waves. That, this could be considered a scientific prediction: the reason for science.

The next 20 years would produce a 26.85 feet. The following 20 years would give us a wave height of 28, and after 300 years, a foolish projection, based on no real data in existence, would produce a wave of only 60.8 feet. It would take another 600 years to attain a 200 foot wave, if data were correct, or in existence.

Remember, this is a fabricated scenario based on non-existent data and political motivations to control, YOU.

The fabricated conditions are: rising water levels due to melting ice due to increased heat. Reality: it is getting.colder.

Increased drought due to heat. Reality, it is obviously getting colder.

How can we have increased moisture and drought at the same time? Is there another variable, movement, the dimwit dem/lib global hoaxing morons cannot imagine or consider? Unbelievable how sub-intelligent climate hoaxing is. It is astounding how sub-intelligent dem/libs are.

The never shown cause of “climate change” is increased greenhouse gases. Reality: more water in oceans, increased heat, more water for plant life across the world, increased plant growth, increased oxygen output.

All these fabrications unconnected to poorly presented effects are the same whether global “warming” or climate change. So call it what it is, warming, because cooling reverses everything and they want everything tied to heat.

Are the so-called “viral scientists the same “scientists”; the same un-scientific writers and modelers moved from global hoaxing?

REVIEW OF “Variability of Antarctic ozone loss in the last decade (2004-2013): high resolution simulations compared to Aura MLS observations”

This commentary began as a response to a comment on facebook. The comment itself was typical, sub-intelligent liberal regurgitation of a global warming/climate change cliché. A reference was included and I naturally, as always, going to the sources for fact and truth, found the reference and began the dissection.

The following is the reference:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00722-7?fbclid=IwAR3SiovfovKCQLcAzbWT3dTm84Izuj-h-7tlA1QkSLinzP9tWUHiFaTP9G4

There was a time when I would hesitate for fear I might find something solid, such as a credible argument or reference. I, occasionally looked at articles and news reports with apprehension. I was always relieved, in a sad way, of so many things. First and foremost I was always relieved that my fellow Americans of a democrat party/liberal bend did not disappoint. As always, the “article”, commentary or report is one lie after another, and, hence, easy to research, dissect and refute. As always, there is no science, very little intelligence and never a truth uttered from a credible or verifiable source.

I am always, naturally disappointed and relieved, again, that any time I look, in fact every time I have searched the sources, I find fallacious, unreliable and unscientific, even silly reporting, references and democrat/liberal stars, who are and say nothing. In this case, I was actually excited to dissect this fake news article. I did a search for the writer and found a “profile”, resume, to use the word loosely.

The following is an edited version of my response on facebook.

Has anybody ever just wondered how they, whoever they is, measured ozone? What scientist went up in an aircraft, stuck a measuring instrument out the window, and observed the ozone layer was less, depleted? Less, compared to what? Who measured ozone 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 30 years ago? 

This discussion of depleted ozone layer began in the late 1970s. What references prior to that time period did “scientists” use to compare, to make the assessment that the ozone layer was less than “before”? When was the before? From the perspective of “scientists” in the 1970s, what references to measurements and data, prior to their claims, so long ago, did they reference?

Who measured anything anytime to enable a comparison? What instrument and mechanism measures ozone? Is it an ozonometer, or speculation and theory? I have never heard of an ozonometer.

The article has two authors. One is the subject of this commentary: Kuttipurath Jayanarayanan.

Jayanarayanan’s profile, resumé, is pretentious from title to last sentence. It is all sophist, rhetoricical. It is one misnomer, oxymoron anti-science science: cliché after silly misleading-headline cliché. The report itself does not contain a single measurement or explanation of scientific methodology used or to be used.

Not only is there no mention of a measurement or data, the report makes no apologies for drawing conclusions about the arctic when the report focuses on the Antarctic. There is not a single measurement in the arctic, but the claim includes both north and south poles. Only someone with no comprehension of scientific modalities would attempt to present conclusions and effects from no measurements or causes. Not a single, “scientist” would attempt such deception.

If, as the study claims, the ozone in the Antarctic is less, or gone, where did it go? Did it breakdown or flow to other locations or planets? Is it possible all the ozone floated to the Arctic? Did anyone think of that? Did anyone check the atmosphere for remnants of ozone moving or dissipating? Is it not curious that suddenly, someone, a series of nobody-someone’s claims there is a hole in the ozone? Is that not like saying, suddenly, we have fewer polar bears when the polar bear population was never counted. Fewer than what?, is the question. Less ozone than what, is the natural query.

A real scientist would have asked innumerable questions. Try these two: What happens to ozone, does it move or breakdown? If ozone breaks down, to what does it change? Notice that cool word, “change”? Change is life, measuring change is science.

A real scientist would also ask, do we have proof, measurements or data that shows what happens to this theoretical, speculative thing that mystery-scientists call ozone?

I looked at the article, found two authors, and did a search for Kuttipurath Jayanarayanan.

Please, go yourselves and look at the silly resumé/profile:

http://www1.iitkgp.ac.in/fac-profiles/showprofile.php?empcode=SWmUS

Notice the “resumé” includes “Research areas”. What is a research area when there is no mention of research?

Next we read more seemingly scientific jargon: “Numerical modeling of Oceans and Atmosphere”

Modeling is not research. As a boy I used to build models too. I don’t know if people realize this, but models are not the real thing. Apparently the “scientist”, Jayanarayanan, or whomever created his “resumé does not know this either.

Modeling? A “scientist” is going to attach his credentials and scientific prowess to modeling? No, never would a real, honest, scientific scientist or researcher do that.

“Numerical” Is that numerical, as in counting? No, not even that. Numerical modeling? Would that be counting, measuring or collecting data? No, numerical modeling would be, either, picking numbers to make a model, or making a model and then counting the fabricated numbers. Either way numerical modeling is a big nothing.

Data would the results of collecting, measuring, identifying in one way or another numbers from a real thing, not a model.

Numerical counting, not numerical modeling would be actually going somewhere, making observations and notes. When I built models of jets I did not go to the factory to participate in building a real jet. I modeled at home, at the kitchen table. “Numerical modeling? That sounds like sitting at the kitchen table and playing “what if” games. What if I had a job that paid 50 dollars an hour and I worked 40 hours per week? Wait, what if I had a job that paid $200 per hour, and worked 10 hours per week? That numerical speculation sure turned into reality, for everyone. Modeling? Anti-counting, sitting at the kitchen table (or desk), pretending to design something based on absolutely nothing.

So, Jayanarayanan models numerics? Is that, like, taking a bunch of numbers, and arranging them in cool flower shapes or snowflake patterns? Models? He makes models of numbers? I made models of plastic. He makes predictions based on less than anything physical?

Do you see, people, how stupid, childish, and unintelligent these attempts to lie, by pretending to be smart, by throwing impressive words together in a sentence, are? Just that one lie, I mean line, shows a complete lack of scientific knowledge.

The next “Research Area” is, wait. What is a research area? Using scientific jargon would one call a research area, expertise or field? A real scientific paper or resumé would list degrees and certifications. A PhD, for example, in Physics would read, PhD, Princeton, 2017. Papers published would be clearly referenced. One who adds irrelevant or unrelated words to create pseudo impressive titles and longer terms is assuredly trying to deceive.

One of his accomplishments is that he was “declined” 13 years ago? What kind of relevance is someone trying to fabricate? How is declined an accomplishment, relevant or impressive? It is not impressive to scientists. It is a joke to real scientists.

To augment my argument that this ozone speculation is nothing more than theory, further down the page under “Publications: 2015 -2016”, we read the first on the list, “Variability in Antarctic ozone loss in the last decade (2004–2013): high-resolution simulations compared to Aura MLS observations by Kuttippurath, J., Godin-Beekmann, S., Lefèvre, F., Santee, M. L., Froidevaux, L., and Hauchecorne, A. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 10385-10397 (2015)”

If you read this line of “Publications:” did you notice the word “simulation”?

Jaya…, whatever has a credible resume of speculation and declined awards, based on simulation. Jaya’s “Publications” section is nothing but a lot of sophist, deceptive, manipulation. But, wait for it, the big nail in NASA’s, NOAA’s and Jaya’s coffin is still to come.

I would bet my corvette, Jayanarayanan has no idea he is even on that resumé, or associated with that bogus study. I’ve checked NOAA, IPCC, and NASA for their so-called scientists. I have tried to contact numerous “scientists” and never has one replied or proven to have a research paper accredited to his name.

The next “area” is “Physical Oceanography” What is physical oceanography? Why does oceanography have to be physical? Is there non-physical oceanography? Yes, we call it speculation, modeling, fabrication and make believe.

Would we call non-physical oceanography, theoretical oceanography, model oceanography? Is physical oceanography just simply, oceanography? Why the pretense and sophistication at science? 

The next “area”, “Climate Change and Climate Modeling”

Modeling, again? What is climate change?

We, normal living-in-reality people call climate change, climate. Realistically, considering climate is change, measurable changes in variables associated with the weather and environment, then climate change, as the global warmers call it now, is “change in weather and environment variables change”. Global warming and “climate change” is just plain stupid from the very foundation!

If temperatures, precipitation, and hours of sunlight did not change, it would not be climate. Climate is change in variables. Climate is following seasons and all kinds of cool, measurable variables: CLIMATE.

What is “Atmospheric Chemistry”?  Do we call atmospheric chemistry, just atmospheric change, as in climate? Why the repetition?

The whole profile is one pretense after another.

In response to a fleeting thought I had, I did a search for Meteorological PhD. The search returned a number of results, I picked one for a well known university, The university of Arizona,

“Program/Degree Atmospheric Sciences (PHD) Program Description. The Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree is primarily a research degree. The candidate must complete at least 36 units of graduate course credit in the major field, including a core of 6 units of dynamic meteorology and 6 units of physical meteorology.”

Notice the very distinct wording, It is a Doctor of Philosophy program, and a degree in a faculty of Atmospheric Sciences. 36 units of study are required, 6 in the major field, 6 in physical meteorology. Does anyone see goofy wording, such as one finds in Jayanarayanan’s profile?

See how succinct and descriptive all the words in that brief online description are. A “Doctor of Philosophy” in a specific discipline, is mentioned quite clearly.

Again, what is “Numerical modeling of Ocean and Atmosphere”? It is not measuring, collecting data or science in the least. What is it, then?

The big exposé, however, will soon follow.

I like to spend time on the minutia sometimes just to show how childish, silly, unintelligent and manipulative these articles and global warming buffoons are. 

What is a “NASA Post”? What is a doctoral fellowship? Is a doctoral fellowship a doctorate degree? This might be a little unconvincing but try the next part of that point, “JPL/NASA. What does Jet Propulsion Lab have to do with this guy? Wait for it: nothing. It is admitted right up front in the remainder of that “Research Area”, “Caltech, California, USA (declined). 2007. Does declined mean  rejected and ‘did not happen’? So Jayanarayanan was offered a fellowship that was declined? Does this ‘nothing happened’ mean it could have happened except that somebody or something did not offer or did not complete the offer? Maybe Jayanarayanan declined because he wanted to pretend to have a fellowship and wanted to inform everyone he has no expertise or training in JPL/NASA. Not only is this whole thing very unprofessional; not only is the whole thing terribly communicated, but it is so childish one must wonder what grade the creator of Jayanarayanan’s profile finished in public school. Who would be so stupid to make a declaration and then admit “declined”? So, what is the award? Is the award boasting of yet another failure?

We have new information, propagated by the dumbest cheaters of congress today, AOC and a few other morons, that the earth is going to uninhabitable in 12 years (11 by now). Is her information garnered from “articles”, numerical models and declined credentials from other sources? Yes, this is all the global hoaxers have. All that exists for the liars and cheaters of global control is fabrications, unscientific bravado, and silly childish gibberish. All the attempts to bring the masses to compliance to a global system of taxation and fear, is based on stupidity of a declined fellowship of no consequence, from 13 years ago. In this case, the pretentious science is 13 years old.

I personally like the next comedy sketch. It is so science-ignorant it is not funny. The next “award” is a CNRS Post – Doctoral Fellowship. Did Jayanarayanan get the fellowship? The “award” is so poorly written it reeks of terrible childish, grade-school writing skills. If it truly were a French Award” from a French institution of higher learning, one would expect consistency in the title of the award. The whole name of the university is in English, except for one word in French. Centre is French for center. Somebody knows very little French but thought to try to trick you, dear readers, that this is an institution with some prestige because one word is French.

In French it would be Centre Nationale Recherche Science. According to Jayanarayanan’s profile it is a fellowship for first post-doctoral study. That claim does not coincide with the claims of the “Centre”. Jayanarayanan’s claim is not an accomplishment. If it were it would read something like, Doctorate degree in…

A grant of money to do something may have been “declined”, rescinded, or the dude, Jaya….whatever, probably did not finish. Maybe he did not start. No matter the circumstances, nothing has come of it, making it a nothing, again a pretentious claim.

The biggest evidence of stupidity and non-science is the, “UGC – N ational E ligibility T est L ectureship. Is someone trying to be stupid or confusing? Is someone actually so stupid they cannot check their own work to correct major typos, or are they actually trying to be stupid? Can someone tell us what award it is Jaya…..whatever received when he received an award for being eligible for a test lectureship? What on earth is a test lectureship?

What is UGC? Is it University Grants Committee? Did Jaya….whatever receive a grant, and for what, nothing? Or, as it sounds, he did not receive a grant for nothing.

I could further dissect the silly, sub-standard, mostly incoherent profile and pretentious works of Jayanarayanan but I will move on to other work.

I looked at the CNRS site and found more fabrications from nothing, and again, childish writing and understanding. Eventually I will dissect the simple words of the “missions” of that site.

Until then, I plead with you, dear readers, believe nothing, not even my words in any and all articles and commentaries I write.

Exercise your minds, please. Do more research of Jaya…whatever’s apparent professionalism. Pick a sentence or headline of the profile, break down the words and research the statements for yourselves. Find, for your own mental expansion, the contradictions and silly manipulative attempts found in every sentence and claim of the profile. I must inject there is something very important missing from Jaya….whatever’s profile. He likes holding hands and long walks on the beach. How sweet, and totally unprofessional: another black mark of reality against the totalitarian, global oppressors and plunderers of mankind.

REVIEW OF “VARIABILITY OF ANTARCTIC OZONE LOSS IN THE LAST DECADE (2004-2013: HIGH RESOLUTION SIMULATIONS COMPARED TO Aura MLS OBSERVATIONS”

REVIEW OF “Variability of Antarctic ozone loss in the last decade (2004-2013): high resolution simulations compared to Aura MLS observations”

https://liberalnewsreview.com/2020/01/20/review-of-variability-of-antarctic-ozone-loss-in-the-last-decade-2004-2013-high-resolution-simulations-compared-to-aura-mls-observations/

This commentary began as a response to a comment on facebook. The comment itself was typical, sub-intelligent liberal regurgitation of a global warming/climate change cliché. A reference was included and I naturally, as always, going to the sources for fact and truth, found the reference and began the dissection.

The following is the reference:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00722-7?fbclid=IwAR3SiovfovKCQLcAzbWT3dTm84Izuj-h-7tlA1QkSLinzP9tWUHiFaTP9G4

There was a time when I would hesitate to challenge the apparent scientific commentary for fear I might find something solid, such as a credible argument or reference. I, occasionally looked at articles and news reports with apprehension. I am always relived and sorry at the same time: relieved my fears were nothing and the article is a fraud, and sad that there are so many frauds and cheats, liars and ignoramuses in science.

First and foremost I was always relieved that my fellow Americans of a democrat party/liberal bend did not disappoint. As always, the “article”, commentary or report is one lie after another, and, hence, easy to research, dissect and refute. As always, there is no science, very little intelligence and never a truth uttered from a credible or verifiable source.

I am always, naturally disappointed and relieved, again, that any time I look, in fact every time I have searched the sources, I find fallacious, unreliable and unscientific; even silly reporting, references and democrat/liberal stars, who are and say nothing. In this case, I was actually excited to dissect this fake news article. I did a search for the writer and found a “profile”, resume, to use the word loosely.

The following is an edited version of my response on facebook.

Has anybody ever just wondered how they, whoever they is, measured ozone? What scientist went up in an aircraft, stuck a measuring instrument out the window, and observed the ozone layer was less and depleted? Less, compared to what? Who measured ozone 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 30 years ago? 

This discussion of depleted ozone layer began in the late 1970s. What references prior to that time period did “scientists” use to compare, to make the assessment that the ozone layer was less than “before”? When was the before? From the perspective of “scientists” in the 1970s, what references to measurements and data, prior to their claims, so long ago, did they reference?

Who measured anything anytime to enable a comparison? What instrument and mechanism measures ozone? Is it an ozonometer, or speculation and theory? I have never heard of an ozonometer.

The article has two authors. One is the subject of this commentary: Kuttipurath Jayanarayanan.

Jayanarayanan’s profile, resumé, is pretentious from title to last sentence. It is all sophist and rhetorical. It is one overall misnomer: an oxymoron anti-science science cliché after silly misleading-headline cliché. The report itself does not contain a single measurement or explanation of one single aspect of scientific methodology used or employed.

Not only is there no mention of a measurement or data, the report makes no apologies for drawing conclusions about the arctic when the report focuses on the Antarctic. There is not a single measurement in the arctic, but the claim includes both north and south poles. In fact there is actually no antarctic measurement either, just speculation and “models”.

Only someone with no comprehension of scientific modalities would attempt to present conclusions and effects from no measurements or causes. Not a single, “scientist” would attempt such deception.

If, as the study claims, the ozone in the Antarctic is less, or gone, where did it go? Did it breakdown or flow to other locations or planets? Is it possible all the ozone floated to the Arctic? Did anyone think of that? Did anyone check the atmosphere for remnants of ozone moving or dissipating? Is it not curious that suddenly someone, a series of nobody-someone’s, claims there is a hole in the ozone? Is that not like saying, suddenly, we have fewer polar bears when the polar bear population was never counted. Fewer than what?, is the question. Less ozone than what, is the natural query.

Did the ozone float to the Arctic? This is not an odd question, you must realize. If ozone is unique to the polar regions and it is claimed to have disappeared from the Antarctic, where did it go? Ozone surely seeks polar regions. Is it possible it floated to the Arctic? Nobody would know and the pseudo-scientists are so dumb they could not surmise, suppose or think to think. They re so bereft of science they did not even ask the question, what happened to the ozone in the Antarctic? They could not possibly ask the question of the Arctic because they had no idea ozone was there, gone, or ever existed in the Arctic. Nobody measured it, the morons just presumed it was less as well. How silly.

A real scientist would have asked innumerable questions. Try these two: What happens to ozone, does it move or breakdown? If ozone breaks down, to what does it change? Notice that cool word, “change”? Change is life, measuring change is science.

A real scientist would also ask, do we have proof, measurements or data that shows what happens to this theoretical, speculative thing that mystery-scientists call ozone?

I looked at the article, found two authors, and did a search for Kuttipurath Jayanarayanan.

Please, go yourselves and look at the silly resumé/profile:

http://www1.iitkgp.ac.in/fac-profiles/showprofile.php?empcode=SWmUS

Notice the “resumé” includes “Research areas”. What is a research area when there is no mention of research?

Next we read more seemingly scientific jargon: “Numerical modeling of Oceans and Atmosphere”

Modeling is not research. As a boy I used to build models too. I don’t know if people realize this, but models are not the real thing. Apparently the “scientist”, Jayanarayanan, or whomever created his “resumé does not know this either.

Modeling? A “scientist” is going to attach his credentials and scientific prowess to modeling? No, never would a real, honest, scientific scientist or researcher do that.

“Numerical” Is that numerical, as in counting? No, not even that. Numerical modeling? Would that be counting, measuring or collecting data? No, numerical modeling would be, either, picking numbers to make a model, or making a model and then counting the fabricated numbers. Either way numerical modeling is a big nothing.

Data would be the results of collecting, measuring, identifying in one way or another numbers from a real thing, not a model.

Numerical counting, not numerical modeling would be actually going somewhere, making observations and notes. When I built models of jets I did not go to the factory to participate in building a real jet. I modeled at home, at the kitchen table. “Numerical modeling? That sounds like sitting at the kitchen table and playing “what if” games. What if I had a job that paid 50 dollars an hour and I worked 40 hours per week? Wait, what if I had a job that paid $200 per hour, and worked 10 hours per week? That numerical speculation sure turned into reality, for everyone. Modeling? Anti-counting, sitting at the kitchen table (or desk), pretending to design something based on absolutely nothing.

So, Jayanarayanan models numerics? Is that, like, taking a bunch of numbers, and arranging them in cool flower shapes or snowflake patterns? Models? He makes models of numbers? I made models of plastic. He makes predictions based on less than anything physical?

Do you see, people, how stupid, childish, and unintelligent these attempts to lie, by pretending to be smart, by throwing impressive words together in a sentence, are? Just that one lie, I mean line, shows a complete lack of scientific knowledge.

The next “Research Area” is, wait. What is a research area? Using scientific jargon would one call a research area, expertise or field? A real scientific paper or resumé would list degrees and certifications. A PhD, for example, in Physics would read, PhD, Princeton, 2017. Papers published would be clearly referenced. One who adds irrelevant or unrelated words to create pseudo impressive titles and longer terms is assuredly trying to deceive.

One of his accomplishments is that he was “declined” 13 years ago? What kind of relevance is someone trying to fabricate? How is declined an accomplishment, relevant or impressive? It is not impressive to scientists. It is a joke to real scientists.

To augment my argument that this ozone speculation is nothing more than theory, further down the page under “Publications: 2015 -2016”, we read the first on the list, “Variability in Antarctic ozone loss in the last decade (2004–2013): high-resolution simulations compared to Aura MLS observations by Kuttippurath, J., Godin-Beekmann, S., Lefèvre, F., Santee, M. L., Froidevaux, L., and Hauchecorne, A. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 10385-10397 (2015)”

If you read this line of “Publications:” did you notice the word “simulation”?

Jaya…, whatever has a credible resume of speculation and declined awards, based on simulation. Jaya’s “Publications” section is nothing but a lot of sophist, deceptive, manipulation. But, wait for it, the big nail in NASA’s, NOAA’s and Jaya’s coffin is still to come.

I would bet my Corvette Stingray, that Jayanarayanan has no idea he is even on that resumé, or associated with that bogus study. I’ve checked NOAA, IPCC, and NASA for their so-called scientists. I have tried to contact numerous “scientists” and never has one replied or proven to have a research paper accredited to his name.

The next “area” is “Physical Oceanography” What is physical oceanography? Why does oceanography have to be physical? Is there non-physical oceanography? Yes, we call it speculation, modeling, fabrication and make believe.

Would we call non-physical oceanography, theoretical oceanography, model oceanography? Is physical oceanography just simply, oceanography? Why the pretense and sophistication at science? 

The next “area”, “Climate Change and Climate Modeling”

Modeling, again? What is climate change?

We, normal living-in-reality people call climate change, climate. Realistically, considering climate is change, measurable changes in variables associated with the weather and environment, then climate change, as the global warmers call it now, is “change in weather and environment variables change”. Global warming and “climate change” is just plain stupid from the very foundation!

If temperatures, precipitation, and hours of sunlight did not change, it would not be climate. Climate is change in variables. Climate is following seasons and all kinds of cool, measurable variables: CLIMATE.

What is “Atmospheric Chemistry”?  Do we call atmospheric chemistry, just atmospheric change, as in climate? Why the repetition?

The whole profile is one pretense after another.

In response to a fleeting thought I had, I did a search for Meteorological PhD. The search returned a number of results, I picked one for a well known university, The university of Arizona,

“Program/Degree Atmospheric Sciences (PHD) Program Description. The Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree is primarily a research degree. The candidate must complete at least 36 units of graduate course credit in the major field, including a core of 6 units of dynamic meteorology and 6 units of physical meteorology.”

Notice the very distinct wording, It is a Doctor of Philosophy program, and a degree in a faculty of Atmospheric Sciences. 36 units of study are required, 6 in the major field, 6 in physical meteorology. Does anyone see goofy wording, such as one finds in Jayanarayanan’s profile?

See how succinct and descriptive all the words in that brief online description are. A “Doctor of Philosophy” in a specific discipline, is mentioned quite clearly.

Again, what is “Numerical modeling of Ocean and Atmosphere”? It is not measuring, collecting data or science in the least. What is it, then?

The big exposé, however, will soon follow.

I like to spend time on the minutia sometimes just to show how childish, silly, unintelligent and manipulative these articles and global warming buffoons are. 

What is a “NASA Post”? What is a doctoral fellowship? Is a doctoral fellowship a doctorate degree? This might be a little unconvincing but try the next part of that point, “JPL/NASA. What does Jet Propulsion Lab have to do with this guy? Wait for it: nothing. It is admitted right up front in the remainder of that “Research Area”, “Caltech, California, USA (declined). 2007. Does declined mean  rejected and ‘did not happen’? So Jayanarayanan was offered a fellowship that was declined? Does this ‘nothing happened’ mean it could have happened except that somebody or something did not offer or did not complete the offer? Maybe Jayanarayanan declined because he wanted to pretend to have a fellowship and wanted to inform everyone he has no expertise or training in JPL/NASA. Not only is this whole thing very unprofessional; not only is the whole thing terribly communicated, but it is so childish one must wonder what grade the creator of Jayanarayanan’s profile finished in public school. Who would be so stupid to make a declaration and then admit “declined”? So, what is the award? Is the award boasting of yet another failure?

We have new information, propagated by the dumbest cheaters of congress today, AOC and a few other morons, that the earth is going to be uninhabitable in 12 years (11 by now). Is her information garnered from “articles”, numerical models and declined credentials from other sources? Yes, this is all the global hoaxers have. All that exists for the liars and cheaters of global control is fabrications, unscientific bravado, and silly childish gibberish. All the attempts to bring the masses to compliance to a global system of taxation and fear, is based on stupidity of a declined fellowship of no consequence, from 13 years ago. In this case, the pretentious science is 13 years old.

I personally like the next comedy sketch. It is so science-ignorant it is not funny. The next “award” is a CNRS Post – Doctoral Fellowship. Did Jayanarayanan get the fellowship? The “award” is so poorly written it reeks of terrible childish, grade-school writing skills. If it truly were a French Award” from a French institution of higher learning, one would expect consistency in the title of the award. The whole name of the university is in English, except for one word in French. Centre is French for center. Somebody knows very little French but thought to try to trick you, dear readers, that this is an institution with some prestige because one word is French.

In French it would be Centre Nationale Recherche Science. According to Jayanarayanan’s profile it is a fellowship for first post-doctoral study. That claim does not coincide with the claims of the “Centre”. Jayanarayanan’s claim is not an accomplishment. If it were it would read something like, Doctorate degree in…

A grant of money to do something may have been “declined”, rescinded, or the dude, Jaya….whatever, probably did not finish. Maybe he did not start. No matter the circumstances, nothing has come of it, making it a nothing, again a pretentious claim.

The biggest evidence of stupidity and non-science is the, “UGC – N ational E ligibility T est L ectureship. Is someone trying to be stupid or confusing? Is someone actually so stupid they cannot check their own work to correct major typos, or are they actually trying to be stupid? Can someone tell us what award it is Jaya…..whatever received when he received an award for being eligible for a test lectureship? What on earth is a test lectureship?

How far removed from any lectureship of an undisclosed topic is eligibility for s test of a state (ship) of an undisclosed lecture? This is a nothing of a nothing of a nothing.

What is UGC? Is it University Grants Committee? Did Jaya….whatever receive a grant, and for what, nothing? Or, as it sounds, he did not receive a grant for nothing.

I could further dissect the silly, sub-standard, mostly incoherent profile and pretentious works of Jayanarayanan but I will move on to other work.

I looked at the CNRS site and found more fabrications from nothing, and again, childish writing and understanding. Eventually I will dissect the simple words of the “missions” of that site.

Until then, I plead with you, dear readers, believe nothing, not even my words in any and all articles and commentaries I write.

Exercise your minds, please. Do more research of Jaya…whatever’s apparent professionalism. Pick a sentence or headline of the profile, break down the words and research the statements for yourselves. Find, for your own mental expansion, the contradictions and silly manipulative attempts found in every sentence and claim of the profile. I must inject there is something very important missing from Jaya….whatever’s profile. He likes holding hands and long walks on the beach. How sweet, and totally unprofessional: another black mark of reality against the totalitarian, global oppressors and plunderers of mankind.

SCIENCE-CHALLENGED: “Melting of Greenland’s ice is ‘off the charts,’ study shows”

Science-challenged: “Melting of Greenland’s ice is ‘off the charts,’ study shows”

Astounding dem/lib stupidity, as usual, tries to trick you, dear reader. You have been classically conditioned to accept silly fabrications without critical thinking or deductive reasoning.

I am not trying to insult you, dear reader and fellow American.

Most people just want to live their lives, enjoy things and rely on experts to know and tell truth. This is the problem.

To steal and cheat, truth must be eliminated and or flip-flopped. Hence, today in spite of Constitutional bars, a man, not a crime, is being investigated.

How would you, dear fellow American, guaranteed rights before the law; how would you like being investigated when there are no crimes committed? Is that not a severe bastardization of OUR self-governing rule of law? You may need to study that, refer to some of my other commentaries. Reading the Federalist Papers and YOUR, OUR Bill of Rights would also give you great insight.

What is the surface area of Greenland? Nobody thought to mention that in their pseudo-scientific fabrication? Do these so-called scientists know? Did they bother to research that for their mathematical formulae?

Wait! What? Mathematical formulas? Did the scientists think to collect data and inject it into a formula, by their design, if none other is found, and make a cause-and-effect determination? This is science, but we don’t even see a formula, or reference to a formula, or a reference to data or collection of data or measurements. How far from science can these climate alarmists get? How lacking in the tools of science can these short story “writers” get?

What is the entire surface area of the world’s oceans? Hmmm, nobody thought to mention that? No data? Curious the global warming dimwits forgot that important variable.

How can they make a claim without knowing surface areas of Greenland and the oceans?

Estimates are that Greenland has a land surface area of approximately 836,330 square miles, compared to 139.38 million square miles of ocean. The ratio is 166 to one. It would take, therefore, 166 Greenlands to cover the world’s oceans.

Or it would take 166 feet deep of ice, not snow, melted and in the oceans to raise the oceans around the world one foot.

Considering that much of Greenland is NOT covered by ice, rather snow that melts in the spring and summer and is replaced in the fall and winter, the ratio is much higher because snow does not melt to water at a one to one ratio. Ice, does not melt at a one to one ratio.

Did the fake-science, science fiction writers of this science-retarded commentary find that information; that variable and reality interesting, if not paramount in considering all their goofy, dopey claims? Did they fail to think about that in advance (hypothesize)? Science thinks in advance and lays out all the variables, conditions, parameters for study, and then collects data and interprets it, creating an identifiable cause-and-effect relationship. The same is true of graphs. I will provide more on the fake graphs subsequent to this commentary. 

Did those morons think of what they were saying?

Setting aside the insults I throw at incorrigible liars who pretend to know anything, can anyone reading this, or any one of the pseudo-scientists involved in the “writing” of the article, explain how much snow and ice has melted and will melt? At current melting fates, how long will i take to flood the earth 23 feet, as the article claims? Wait! What? No melting rates provided, or determined, or guessed at? For every foot of water the world’s oceans rise it takes 166 feet of Greenland ice so a 23 foot rise in the oceans’ level requires 3,818 feet of Greenland ice, NOT snow. 

How could the, dare I say, science-retards, forget that catastrophic detail?   

Not a single variable, measurement, or shred of data has been produced in the absolutely bogus article. In fact, the article does not exist at the declared site: nature.com or in the magazine, “NATURE”, itself.

Show me I am wrong, please. Someone show me, and all of us, something that might represent a scientific measurement?

A theory; an hypothesis, always precedes scientific study but the scientific goons, the science-retards did not even have the scientific expertise or knowledge to try and fabricate a theory. That failure is like going to play hockey and forgetting all your equipment, especially the basic: skates.

By now I hope you realize that the world’s ocean levels rising 23 feet by Greenland melt-off, is an impossibility because there is not that much ice on Greenland, and because snow and ice do not produce an equal amount of water, by volume. Real variables could have been supplied, if the dimwits had any. Take for example, an average depth of snow and ice on Greenland in the summer and the same in winter. Go back 50 years and compare. What, no comparisons? See how void of science this is when the basics have not even been mentioned, foreseen, or contemplated.

Setting aside comparisons we could try another avenue. Average depth and density of snow and ice, multiplied by surface area, gives a volume of snow/ice, and melted this could give us a volume of water, divided by the ocean’s surface area to produce a raise in water level. Nothing even close.

How much of Greenland, in the winter, right now, is green? None? That is the truth.

How much more melt this year than last year? For science to exist; for scientific methodology to be employed, we would have to know the pre-test and post test. All we have from the writers of the study: not those who did the (non-existent) study; is that someone (maybe, according to a “writer’s” claim) did ice core drilling, after the fact, nothing in a pre-test. There is no record nor mention of pre-drilling depths of ice or snow. There can be no comparisons hence there can be no claims more or less has melted than before. There is no “before”. There is no “before” so there can be no “after”, making the claim that “after” is more, is a fake-science fabrication.

Are these dem/lib political goons so stupid they forgot that, and everything right down to the skates (and ice)? They are not even smart or knowledgable enough to know any of this process in the first place.

How could these “writers” not have pictures? Not a single picture? Just that exercise alone could show (maybe falsely manipulate others), to believe something, that maybe one of these liars went to Greenland. No pictures?

Nobody went.

It is a curiosity every reader should have wondered. One picture might have proven that Greenland is actually green, and yet the imbeciles; the science-retards (literally), could not provide one picture. Is it because there are none, because nobody went, or is it because somebody went to Greenland, and it was white?

These political goons are so bereft of science and logic, that in their own sub-intelligence, they could not foresee that a complete and total lack of hypothesis, data, and pictures would absolutely sink and scuttle their lies.

They are literally so ignorant they cannot imagine that the average American can see through the sub-intelligent morons’ lies.

With another cold winter ahead (announced on liberal “news” channels), record cold temperatures assaulting the northern Atlantic coast, leading to Greenland, one must surely wonder how this cold, repeat COLD, frigid, icy, dippy-doodle-itis unheat melts the massive (not massive at all) ice sheets of Greenland. Is the scientifically-backward-refrigerator-warming-stuff-effect, that the dem/lib/global hoaxing retards have claimed, in opposition to reality, actually melting Greenland ice?

In other words, again, setting aside the obvious, deserved insults the dem/lib political agents get, are the very cold temperatures of the Atlantic coast; colder than last ten years and colder than average; temperatures that only get colder as they move north, towards Greenland, somehow, magically, politically melting ice of Greenland?

How would anyone know when nobody has been there? We do not even have pictures of scientists standing in Greenland, in the middle of this fall (barely winter, or last spring-when there would have been no ice anyway) showing us green growth.

Nobody was there!

Perhaps that feeling, frigid, icy, cool, cold, record-breaking cold temperature along the atlantic coast, is a warm cold. Perhaps warm enough “cold” actually melts ice and snow. 10 degrees fahrenheit? No? It must be a new, politically-motivated, fake-science phenomenon. Democrat party/liberal media frigid cold melts ice. No? I am always amazed at how politics, dem/lib/bolshevik, centralized control-and-plunder-politics, changes reality, especially science. 

If dimwit dem/libs want to call 20 below zero, warm, does that actually melt ice? That must be the fake-science, “missing link, holy grail of global hoaxing, I mean “warming”.

How stupid can dem/libs be?

Nobody can be this stupid without trying. It is all a purposeful hoax, lie, scam, to get the masses afraid, manipulated and accustomed to living in ignorance so they can be exploited, Again, dem/libs create crisis, that cannot possibly exist, and then offer a political/tyrannical solution to a non-scientific, dem/lib/globalist nightmare.

But let us continue.

How much water is produced from melting ice, or snow?

Did the “study”, which is only a “writer’s” mention of a (non-existent) study, give any information about the type of snow that is, ta-da, mysteriously missing from Whiteland, I mean Greenland?

How deep is the acclaimed missing snow-pack? What is the actual, estimated snow/ice that has melted and how much water does it produce, or did produce? Remember, Whiteland, I mean Greenland, has not yet melted. This is all a “writer’s” regurgitation of estimated and computer generated fabrications and political science agents, that Whiteland’s, I mean, Greenland’s snow and ice is melting at an alarming rate.

What is that rate? No rate, no data, no measurements? That is political science, not real science! A government entity, the deep state or hidden dem/lib/bolshevik, non-governmental agencies, fabricates fear through corporations and offers partnership to force a political solution, is the definition of fascism.

Years ago, I estimated, by taking the surface area of the Arctic and Antarctic, and an average depth of ice and snow, and estimated the volume of water that would be produced should it all melt. I found records of seismic tests that showed depths of ice in both poles, and made an estimation based on a number of formulae.

Then I divided the surface area of all the oceans in the world and discovered the total from both poles would raise the world’s oceans about half a foot: six inches. That is the worst case scenario, but it is not happening.

And Whiteland, I mean Greenland, has a fraction of the ice and snow.

The dimwits have curiously forgotten scientific words; words that might be part of a formula or used to measure to produce data. Words such as snow-pack, volume, average or mean, temperatures, comparisons, control group, study group, variable, data, resultant and conclusion, are key factors in scientific research and study, and yet these dimwit dem/lib political hacks have refused to; have failed to understand the need to, enter the realm of science by exerting and employing these real exercises and terms. How utterly void and vacant of real science can anyone actually get! Nothing worse than these goons.

How does any of this explain that superlative idiot’s (Al Gore’s) claim that he saw fish swimming in the streets of cities of Florida, about 10 years ago, and the water, due to Whiteland, I mean Greenland, is still rising. I feel for Floridians, abandoning their homes and property to rising water levels. That 1/8th of an imagined, non-scientific inch must surely be difficult to contend with.

My heart goes out, to coin a pretentious dem/lib cliché, to all the Floridians who have had to leave Florida and move to cooler climes to avoid the oppressive heat and onslaught of water inundation.

Wait, Whiteland’s, I mean Greenland’s, ice, according to global hoaxers, I mean climate change scientists, melted a decade ago. Holy rat-crap, we are already drowned and dead, and don’t know it. Why did those global hoaxing, I mean global warming, political agents, I mean scientists, not tell us we were dead, I mean drowned, years ago? Why the conspiracy of silence? It’s pure evil. We are all dead and the global hoaxers, I mean global scientists, conspired to keep this serious reality from us.

Crap, think of the money I could have saved on food, all these ten years now, If I had only known I was dead. D’uh dopey me. LOL!

Wait, another important reality the fabrications, I mean studies, forgot to show.

While the north is in a deep freeze, record cold temperatures, according to dem/lib/political agents’ predictions, melt the white-stuff fastly, lol. No? I digress. I know, I should not mock the science-retards.

Record cold in the north follows a pattern we all know as, wait for it, it’s coming, patience; wait, the real scientific word is, seasonal.

So we have record white stuff-producing temperatures in the north, actually turning water to ice and snow, and to balance we have warming, or,….wait…..patience, melting in the south. This melting trend, happens almost every year, especially when temperatures get warm, and stuff, in the south pole area, land, places. Okay, I mock, again: dimwit dem/libs cannot even use correct terms they are so lacking in everything in reality. The morons could not even try to inject variables such as surface area, ice pack, density, seasonal change, and so much more. Again, how dumb can dem/libs get?

The seasons change. That is a reality even dimwit dem/libs should not have forgotten. Even though it happens so rarely; so rarely we can only count the seasonal changes four times a year, one would think dimwit dem/libs might have had two brain cells to synapse together to try and get around that reality, no matter the lies they might have had to fabricate. They are so inept they could not foresee they would need some real, tangible measurements, pictures, theories, studies, data etc.  So inept they could foresee they would need skates for their upcoming hockey game.

The morons could not even imagine what a scientist might write or pretend to have and/or know, so stupid and vacant of reality and brain power, they are. Unbelievable how science is so accurate, four seasons, four times a year, but the brain dead, dimwit dem/libs could not even imagine they might be standing in a deep freeze and wonder why the winter is so damned cold.

It is near impossible to describe the absolute imbecility of these dem/lib dimwits.

But, the point is that when it is the white-stuff producing season in the north, it is the opposite in the south, and when it is the white-stuff producing season in the south, Whiteland, I mean Greenland sometimes gets green.

I wonder if dem/lib political agents are color blind between green and white. Wait! White, or anti-black, as the anti-scientists call it, is not a color.