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.!

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.

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.

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

Re: “Melting of Greenland’s ice is ‘off the charts’, study shows”
It is winter. Ice does not melt in winter. There is no melting now because it IS winter. Did the dem/libs forget that all-important detail?
When did the global icers, climates, whatever, do their measuring and what were the parameters? None? Nothing? How does that qualify as science or even close?
Greenland is called Greenland because hundreds of years ago the land was green, in the winters. With barely a start to winter Greenland today is not green. TODAY, right now, this year and for the last 100 measurable years, Greenland is not and has not been green in winter.
It is winter now; cold, white, freezing icy winter.
Those are not charts! They are fabricated, political agendas transferred to anti-science posters!
There are no charts. There are computer generated fabrications, all based on anti-science politics. In fact those charts are so bad, one chart’s title is backward from the x-axis. No real scientist, mathematician, student, thinking person or dog that cannot bark could be so stupid to get the time frame on the x-axis backward.
If, for example, you put a bowl of warm chili in the refrigerator and it cooled, that would be cooling, not warming. If, for example, we put Greenland and all its winter wonder green land, in a refrigerator, and it turned white from snow and ice, it could not somehow, magically be a warming influence because a political agenda declares it so. This is science-retardation rammed down the throats of unwary, unsuspecting, trusting people, by the filthiest slugs and scum in the world: dem/lib agent provocateurs.
How can sticking Greenland in a refrigerator be global warming? It is science-retardation the dem/libs push. It is rational-thought-retardation. It is cause-and-effect-retardation, and the dem/libs think they are smart. It is not even close to rational or thoughtful, much less scientific. The stupidity is astounding!
How can one stop laughing at the absolute stupidity of global hoaxing?
CHARTS? None! The pictographs are random variables. many of which do not sensibly correloate.
Notice the goons, the absolute morons could not QUOTE ‘off the charts’ They could not quote because there is no quotable claim. It is a paraphrase hence the ‘ ‘ and not “ “, quotation marks.
The global hoaxing idiots cannot even see how stupid their own remarks and claims are.
I could go on and on, in all realms of dem/lib pretentiousness, and the most obnoxious sub-intelligent tyranny in everything the idiots say and write.
And people think morons like rachel mad-cow are smart. This phenomenon is unbelievable. Mad-cow is a regurgitating moron, like all the dem/lib liars who proclaim a political solution to fake-science.
Where are the measurements? Where is the study? Where is a shred of science?
I am going to beat the crap out of these filthy lying pig-crap-scum, again.
Oh, I just did, again. The score is now:
Publius/brent/thirdoptbybrent/liberalnewsreview.com 3,798
dem/libs/utardia/bolshevik-dick) 0, nul, zip, nada, kein, zilch, ZEEEEEEEEEEEEERO!

FAKE WEATHER REPORT, JUNE 6 2018

FAKE NEWS REPORTING FAKE WEATHER

On June 6, 2018, the weather reports claimed 95 degree heat, in June, is 20 degrees above normal. LIES, fake weather. What is a normal temperature? Is normal an average, or mean temperature. Is normal a measurement of daily average temperatures, or average high temperatures? No. Normal is messing with communication to distract, deceive, and delude, YOU.

How many days of below average high temperatures in May and June did SLC experience? The fake news reported nothing regarding this yet pretends that “normal” is somehow scientific or that comparing normal nothings to one day above average daily highs, is signidicant while ignoring 20 days of below average high temperature recordings.

The fake news reports apples and oranges together as if the confusion of variables was magically “scientific”? Comporting daily mean (average) temperatures with daily average highs or lows, is such a political marmalade of anti-science fake news.

ICE CORE SAMPLES AND STUDY

Regarding a post on Craigslist, on or about October 3rd 2016, my post is as follows:

RE: “For sloppy-brent…”, and “Ice Core samples”.

Wow, that’s a tough one. Ice core samples from 650,000 years ago. Whew, tough. How does utatrdia know? Is it possible, just on the outside chance that this is just a theory? Just musing to myself, just wondering. Does the “study” start with a theory, an idea, a hypothesis (like all experiments), a reference point? Does the study or experiment include a margin of error (like real science does)? A standard margin of error is usually 2 to 4 percent.

Does the author state it as fact or theory?

Who took the ice core samples? Name the scientist and his or her study. NOTHING?

Come on, please, tell us what scientist went to the arctic or antarctic, drilled and took measurements. How deep did he or she, said scientist, go?

Where is the data?

So much constipation of data and reality in this “study”, as usual. One easy argument against is that a two to four percent margin of error is 13,000 to 26,000 years. That is an amazing discrepancy. However, going back so far, by estimating the accuracy of a machine that measure guesstimates, theories, of hundreds of thousands of years, the margin of error would be greater. Any scientist worth anything closely related to credibility, would proffer voluntarily, that his or her experiment or study would include a much higher margin of error, perhaps as high as 10 percent. In this pseudo scientific report that would be 65,000 years. With that margin of error, based on speculations of measuring long-gone time, it is hard to say anything accurately about the so-called data and conclusions.

When has a fabrication from that moron utardia ever been difficult for me to refute? When have I ever failed to expose dem/lib fraud and lies? When have I ever been intimidated or caught telling even one lie? The bolshevik bonehead traitors don’t even try.

Hmmmmm. I could go on with the slaughter but I will just repost the crap-kickings I already handed that lying bolshevik moron, utarda/whatever.

thirdoptbybrent/publius 3,217, utardia/star-twit/editor-predator 0

What a loser!

AAAS AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS LETTER TO CONGRESS

AAAS AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS LETTER TO CONGRESS

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?

AAAS AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS LETTER TO CONGRESS

Regarding “consensus” of climate hoaxers.

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?

TO DELUDED DEM/LIBS, COOL CHARTS AND GRAPHS MAKE DEM/LIB FAIRY TALES SCIENCE AND RELIGION

To deluded dem/libs cool charts and graphs make dem/lib fairy tales science and religion

Fabrications with inflated numbers also do the trick, dem/libs think.

Love that graph of water and vapor and stuff and there, at the top of the page, a star for the Louisiana flood. Very scientific. I drew a graph. I had a star and some cool lines, and x and y projections. Do I sound dem/lib science-ish? Is that all it takes to impress loser libbies?

I made a graph and showed three circles of intersecting stuff, with the title: Global intersections against time frame compartments. Sounds cool, huh? Then I added some text below. “The consensus, according to this chart, shows temperatures are cooling globally”. Then I lied about what Pelosi said and added, “see, global trends show cooling”.

Because I want to sound science-ish, all I have to do is fool myself and my resultant, pretentious credibility should be convincing for others: after all, I am a good actor.

Acting, is everything.

Next lesson: how to pretend to be a doctor by carrying a scalpel and speaking medical language. Repeat these words: I looked at your charts and think we should try a new drug.

My fellow Americans, a scientist DOES science. A scientist does NOT sit in a room with a green wall behind him or her, and regurgitate “weather”. 

99 percent of global hoaxers are NOT in a laboratory.

They are NOT in a laboratory setting.

They are NOT doing studies.

They are NOT doing research.

They are NOT measuring anything.

They are NOT standing at the shoreline with a pen and clip board.

They are NOT at either pole taking temperatures. Nobody is at either pole except for military personnel. The poles are off-limits to civilians.

The 99 percent global hoaxers are NOT taking notes.

They are NOT doing experiments.

They are NOT looking or observing.

99 percent of global hoaxers are not even sitting in rooms with other weathermen (posing as scientists) and deriving consensus on anything.

They are NOT doing science in any way, shape or fashion.

99 percent of global hoaxers do not know they are global hoaxers.

There is no community of global scientists. They are not science-ing anything and they are not compiling notes, taking notes, or even thinking of taking notes.

They have nothing to measure or take notes for, and they do NOT even have a reason, a cause, and theory, or hypothesis to use a note to remind themselves to take notes. They do NOT have funding for anything. and so they get jobs and work at jobs.

There is no global science community. It is a fabrication that grows and shifts according to the propaganda needs of the moment. 

They are NOT sitting in committees convening or consensussing anything.

They are not going to conventions, doing online work. They are NOT trading notes because they have none. They are not thinking of trading notes they might have, if they ever did anything science-ish.

99 percent of global hoaxers are doing NOTHING even remotely related to science.

But here is the pièce de résistance: 99 percent, maybe 100 percent of global hoaxers are not, NAAAAAWT connecting observations to claims: empty or just fabricated. To describe the deep fraud of it all, “climate scientists” can be seen in many places, doing all kinds of observing but we never see one, NEVER see a single “climate scientist showing results of the effects of the observed causes. We never see “climate scientists showing connections, math, for example. We never see “climate scientists” showing the orocess that connects a mountain of observations with a black-hole of effects, claimed or referenced. There is no science where there is not scientific method. Scientific method includes, hypothesis, procedures, variables, formulae, isolation of a variable for measure, pre-test and post test, control group or control element, and collation and interpretation of data, among a few other aspects.

Observation and claim, all there is to “climate science” is grotesquely inadequate in determining if an ant farts or the moon is made of cheese. Child-id morons, all those who pretend to present science, or think they are presenting “climate” anything.

They have degrees in fields related to acting, figure skating and entertainment, but they are not doing science. They are being used. They work at jobs and it is a popularity contest: NO SCIENCE, NOT A SHRED

Welcome to dem/lib “science”.

CRAIGSLIST POST 6/21/16, “Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

RE: “Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” 

The following is my response to a post on craigslist in Salt Lake City, June 21, 2016.

In this post the “writer” plagiarizes NOAA with the title of the post and numerous claims throughout.

I write:

Show us the evidence.

What is a climate system? Is dimwit dem/lib talking about a “clime”, or maybe a weather front? These are real terms that reveal real science, understanding, and real knowledge, while “.warming of the climate system…” is at best a non-scientific construct of an alien-structured grammatical mess. Who, what, fabricated this poor collection of words and terms?

Do these dem/libs, fabricating goofy terms and words, think others will wet themselves and follow in line behind simpletons that cannot construct a rational thought?

What is a “…climate system”? What is, “Warming of the climate system…”? Climate is  warming and cooling. This dem/lib is speaking in circles to confuse readers and dazzle unsuspecting readers with his/her/its sophistry (look it up).

Scientific evidence? How could there be evidence when there is no data? Where are the volumes and pages of lists of university studies by PHD students submitting their theses? Where are the measurements, data? Evidence is non-existent without data and a measurement or two. Anyone can pick a topic, go to a library, look up in the indexes for studies done by PHD students on almost anything. This is cutting edge stuff. Anyone can go to the library, look up climate topics and find numerous studies showing the temperatures are dropping.

Suppose I make a claim to illustrate my superior knowledge.

“I know a yard is longer than a meter”, I state.

“How do you know?”, you ask. I reply. “I just know.”

You press, “how long is a yard?” I say, “pretty long, the evidence shows it.” You ask, “how long is a meter?”

I reply, “almost as long as a yard.” You think you have me so you ask me, “If you are comparing the two, how can you know one is longer than the other if you cannot actually compare them. How can you know anything about either measurement if you refer to no studies that compare them, and if you cannot define how long either is?” I reply, “I just know it, the evidence is there.”

Anyone, at this point would ask, “what evidence?”

Besides the fact that I would be dead wrong regarding a yard being longer than the meter, one could also note I totally rejected scientific methodology.

A meter is a full yard plus 3.6 more, MORE inches, making a meter longer than a yard. That is a comparison using a common standard of measuring, to compare the two. This qualifies as data applied. Using one or the other as a standard, and then comparing, would be considered data.

You ask me again, to explain the comparison between the two, and how I can make a comparison without actually comparing variables; without common measurements or data to compare. I reply, “scientific evidence for measuring the measure of a longer yard than a meter, is unequivocal.” At this point you realize you are talking to an uneducated, egomaniacal moron, just as we, the educated and honest conservatives try to communicate with dem/libs, living in “I am special in liberal la-la-land.”

Using an inch to measure two “systems”, and then comparing, we see that a meter is longer than a yard, but a dem/lib would argue against that, if it meant he or she could propagate government stealing from all to give to the dem/lib frauds and liars.

Where is the science? This pseudo-science, injected presumptions played as credible facts, from dem/libs, is almost laughable.

Where is the data? Where is the hypothesis, the theory, the study parameters and interpretations of data? Where is the comparative unit of measure? These things are real characteristics of real science, and the dem/libs haven’t even got a clue how far from real science they are. Lying has a way of making one stupid. In essence, as mom and dad taught us, dem/libs are only fooling themselves.

There  is absolutely nothing credible from the bogus sites because everything is a fabrication.

Everything from liberals is just like my little brother, in third grade, “this guy I know…”, trying to fabricate credibility from a lie. Then he would ramble on to fabricate false truth and “science” to suit his goal, hoping to convince us to give him our money or whatever he wanted.

Notice too, that NOAA is a .gov entity. Government is part of this? Now there is a source for total dishonesty. Why do dem/libs pick and choose which lies from government they want to believe? Are dem/libs so lost in la-la-looney science land that they think it is okay for government to lie as long as it is only lying to conservatives and smart people? The average democrat is at least 10 IQ points below the average republican. Democrats have the uneducated Mexican/muslim vote to factor in their averages. I rest my case.

The fact is that more republicans graduate than democrats. How many Mexicans, do you know, that graduated from college? Do you know just one? The big fraud the democrats proffer is that Mexicans, invaders and the dregs of Mexico, work hard, vote, and are recipients of higher education. Such stupidity, claims connected by nothing except dem/lib lies, is hilarious.

Mexicans in college? How is that possible when the morons cannot even speak English? Who is more ignorant, the Mexican or the dem/libs that persist with bogus claims that are so easily refuted a third grade Mexican him or herself could refute the “lies”?

Remember this and you will know the liberal/progressive/fascist mind: they always want something for no contribution of their own but boast of two things: what they plan to contribute and what they plan to force others to contribute.