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 effects.

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.

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.

RE: “Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Originally written 6/21/16.

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 construction 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 others, 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.

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.

Record high reported (94 degrees) June 6, 2016. Originally published 6/8/16

Just how far will dem/libs go to propagate their lies and agenda?
Record high reported (94 degrees) June 6, 2016. All the news “people” in SLC, reported it, therefore it must be true. I saw it on the internet, right!
I went back and looked. I picked one day, June 6, 1947. Not a particularly hot day, but the reported record, in 1947, is 97 degrees. How long has that record stood? I did not bother looking.
The only way liberal “NEWS” “reporters” and the “NEWS” manufacturers behind the “NEWS” “reporters” could come up with a new record is to discard data, from 1947 and prior, and/or change something of the prior data. WOW!, that is scientific.
I hear that is just what Albert Einstein did: he changed the speed of light to accommodate his theory. Oh, and he had to change the scientific methodology of proving or disproving an hypothesis or theory.
The whole liberal boondoggle of global hoaxing, I mean warming, is fabricated to manipulate the masses.
How stupid, and/or dishonest can these liberal morons be?
And the cause-and-effect, anti-science morons totally discard data that does not conform to their presumed “science”.
Daily mean temperatures are very low. Anyone that has ever worked outdoors, as I have for 20 years in this area, knows that it is not as hot in the mornings as it used to be and does not stay hot as long in the day. That is because the “highs” are also misrepresented: LIES. The daily mean temperatures are grossly unreported because to do so would reveal global cooling.
Regularly my thermometer, that has worked just fine for 20 years since I have had it, and for 30 years with the last owner, shows highs much less than what is reported.
It takes so little effort to disprove everything la-la-land liberals claim. This is why they jump from one attack to another. They are like medieval archers “attacking” squadrons of fighter jets. They shoot their useless arrows into the air, run away and shoot more arrows at the same damned ghosts in the air, that cannot be reached. Then they claim they have been effective dragon-slayers. It takes nothing for YOU, dear reader, fellow American, to learn the truth of all dem/lib claims.
Search and discover for yourself, if America is a democracy or if it was designed as a Constitutional Republic. Then find out what the difference is. This takes about a minute. Then a search for a country that has a Bill of Rights, a list of rights FOR We, the People, anywhere, should take another minute because there is no country on the earth that has a Bill of Rights, FOR the individual.
Lying pig liberals hate mankind so much they will lie and deceive, and manipulate and enslave. Slavery is the purpose of deception and liberal/progressive/democrat party fraud.

RAND PAUL BELIEVES THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL

RAND PAUL BELIEVES THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL

Rand Paul Believes that climate change is real.

So what?

I believe that climate change is real too. I woke up this morning and noticed it was not 10 degrees, like it was January 10th, 2015. Do dem/libs also believe in time change? I woke up this morning and the time was different from when I went to bed. Observation makes science, to dem/lib  simple minds

I wonder, Do libbies weigh themselves before taking a crap and after, compare numbers, and call it weight loss?

Change is inevitable. But what is NOT inevitable is that mankind adjusts. On the history channel it was stated that the earth has been in a warming trend since the last ice age. Is that because neanderthal and homo habilus automobile emissions started warming the earth?

My gawd, how irresponsible and childish is it for “writer” to make such a stupid claim that Rand Paul “believes in climate change”. Did “writer” clarify? No, “writer” made a statement, a portion of another’s words, totally out of context, and then added his/her/its fabrications based on presumed credibility.

Maybe “writer” could tell us how Rand Paul, or anyone could NOT believe in climate change when he sees the seasons change.

I too believe in weight loss, after a crap. I even submit an environmental impact report after every crap. The trend is that after every crap I lose weight. This must mean I am in a weight loss trend. Funny how weight loss translates to an extra ten pounds every year. But, it is weight loss because I only look at observations I want to see, excluding all other variables and data I consider useless because the trend is that I WANT to tell people I have been losing weight. Are libbies that dishonest, or that stupid?

Take a 10,000 year warming trend and identify data that would isolate the cause of the effect. That would be the scientific method of proving or disproving an hypothesis. What variables have the liberals isolated with a logical explanation? NONE? The “scientists” have not even identified the variables they wish to observe, study and measure. The fundamental beginning of a scientific study or experiment is not known, much less understood, in dem/lib global hoaxers’ minds. What data, from 10,000 years ago, was collected and observed?

Ask that one scientist, Joe, the guy that was in a picture with another guy, John, at the IPCC convention (where they are told what to think, and are given absolutely no data. John was the janitor and Joe the principal of the school where they covered the school sign with IPCC.

The dem/libs provide no deep explanation, only fear mongering and unified lies. But wait, we have been in a cooling trend for 20 years. That is a fact. Did we not just have 15 states in the northeast and midwest report unusual cold and snow in April?

15 states report record cold, longer and later winters, more snow, and that is, magically,  global warming. Isolated variables? Not even identified much less observed and measured. Colder than average for a longer than average winter adds immensely to the dropping average temperatures locally, regionally and across the country. Did dem/libs “forget” to be scientific or did they refuse? Either way, it reveals their agenda is NOT, absolutely not, science.

So what if Rand Paul believes in climate change? What change does he “believe in”? Does he believe in climate changing from morning to evening? Does he believe in pollution causing polar bears to swim far distances? Oh, they already do that.

I doubt that “writer” presented the truth anyway. He/she/it, altus/bolshevik-dick/utardia, whatever and whomever, never presents all the facts; never presents the truth of who said what; never presents all the variables; never gives a correct representation of what he/she/it refers to, and certainly never isolates cause and effect; and cannot present any data because there is none.

There is no evidence for anything except computer generated estimates, that haters of mankind and science fabricate.

So, without even looking, I can tell that dimwit libby “writer” is lying.

You, my fellow Americans, can look for yourselves. You, my dear fellow citizens can look at any claim any liberal ever makes, that favors government intervention, regulation, registration and control. You can determine for yourselves if all the variables are included. If not, it is a test with a higher margin of error than margin of credibility. Without data the margin of error is infinity while the margin of reality is non-existent. Welcome to dem/lib la-la-land.

Why do these frauds lie to YOU, me? What line, factor or qualifier did lying liberal misfit “forget” to include? What variable or factor, or end of sentence did libby lout conveniently dismiss because it did not fit his/her/its agenda?

What is the liberal agenda, anyway?

The minority, liberals and democrat political elitists, want more than their share. How do we know this? They want their minority voice to rule above the voices of the majority. History refers to this as tyranny, monarchy, communism, fascism and other forms of elitist rule. It is no small matter that small groups reign over the masses. It is extremely significant, as the history of every country, nation, and community reveals that most humans will live off the labor of others (see Frederick Bastiat, The Law). America is no different. In every community, state or nation there are always those that will exploit others.

It is one thing to forcibly enslave others, quite another thing to lie and mislead others to a docile acceptance of a comfortable yolk.

This comfortable yolk, as history always proves, never stays comfortable. Proof is right before us, irrefutably part of the fabric and history of the struggle for freedom of the great American Constitutional Republic.

The democrat party is this machine of fraud and deception, to lead Americans, the vast majority, to a comfortable slavery. We are already in a form of comfortable slavery but those with no qualifications (democrats and liberals) “believe” they should have the reins of reign. Liberal lies start right at home. Liberals tell themselves they deserve more because they have something better in their characters. Usually it is the inane idea that because they do not “need” a god, they are inherently better, and “nicer”. The irony, incidentally, is that they work very hard to destroy god for others, in their own minds, and think the reality is proven by their imaginations. By this consideration they are less than human.

I, myself am atheist, but do not belittle other’s beliefs, unless the beliefs are fraudulent and exploitive, such as liberal, democrat party religion.

The core, the foundation of the democrat party is fraud and exploitation. The democrat party intends to rule the majority, as an elite group of smarter, evolved beings, that are actually dumb and de-evolved to instinctual, animalistic behavior. Witness for yourselves, my dear fellow citizens, quick tempers of liberals to attack conservatives and republic minded citizens with cruelty and open hatred because their fake superiority; their lacking superiority does not magically, unquestionably win discussion or arguments. They lose because they are inferior.

The reason for the hatred is not apparent. Every day on Craigslist some fraud, an agent of tyranny, or mutt-mind attacks me with no reference to a crime, offense or lie I have committed. I simply refute the lies of others, and refer to history and fact. Someone does not want history and fact known. Why?

So, this attack on myself, personally, is executed for no reason except that I express the will of We, the People (in the majority), and voice my opinion freely. Freedom of others without imposition by rulers, angers the liberals so much they want to shut me up. They always resort to cruel verbal assault, never a point to express the benefits of democrat party rule; never a point to show representation of those they intend to rule.

The cruel and unfounded attack on anyone that presents an opinion or desire related to individual and national freedom is reviled excessively, because it counters democrat party agenda: deceive and mislead to impose dictatorial rule, upon the masses, beginning with comfortable slavery.

The liars must continually skirt their agenda, their so-called ideology because it opens doors of knowledge for the masses that have potential to expose the cruel, tyrannical efforts of the democrats and liberals.

I invite any democrat, liberal, or progressive; anyone to offer an argument with more than superficial promises they cannot keep. Please, someone show me the error of my ways. Reveal to me the economics of stealing more and more from the masses to give them more. Please, reveal to me how taking liberties from OUR guaranteed list of liberties, as found in the Bill of Rights, makes us freer, more responsible, better, kinder, or better off in any way. How does taking our liberties give us more liberty?

Show us, please; please present an argument that goes beyond empty, “…hope and change…”. Show us how democracy beyond its capacities of self-governing, makes America safer, more secure, healthier and wealthier. Wealth? YES. Independence is wealth. Wealth is independence. Wealth and independence is security.

The problem, to return to my point about comfortable slavery, is that it never stays comfortable.

History proves, every time, that ruler law and comfortable slavery always degrade to iron-fisted oppression, genocide, and war to eliminate internal strife.

The agenda of the democrat party is to establish itself as an unchallenged oligarchy, and reduce the masses to poverty. This assertion follows the natural flow of mankind’s tendencies.

Monopoly is always innate to survival. Monopoly is instinctual and cognitive. There has never been a ruler that did not watch his or her back for sedition and/or rebellion in close government ranks. How many hundreds, thousands, of rulers throughout history have reigned short terms and lives, ended by close administrators? Survival at the top requires removal of enemies, and potential enemies: monopoly.

The democrat party, liberals, progressives and lobby groups all want this monopoly for their own security. They care not what price others pay, or are forced to pay.

Others have learned from history, ignoring the success of the great American Constitutional Republic, that joining the side of the governing class, through the few means available, does increase one’s lifestyle and survivability. It is a fraud beyond compare that totalitarian rule benefits anyone except the few, literally a handful.

“Writer” mentions conservatives and republicans identify climate change, ”…is that everyone know(s) that climate change is a big lie put out by the liberals to save the planet.” 

Who believes climate change is a lie to trick We, the People into saving the planet? Nobody believes that but millions believe the dem/libs have lied to trick the masses into surrendering rights to a government solution for a fake science propaganda campaign.

“Everyone” does not know what “writer” hopes others will ignorantly accept as truth. Nothing, even dimwit’s sneaky attempt to reinforce a bogus verity by stating it sarcastically, has any conclusive scientific backing. At what point in this observation and science process do dem/lib, global hoaxers inject any science?

Mankind can adjust, and that is what self-governing is. Checks and balances, as found in The Constitution, individual freedoms and security as guaranteed in The Bill of Rights, and separation of powers for, believe it or not, individual rights and freedoms, are the only things keeping all equal before the law. There is no other equality.

What this means is that the dem/lib agenda is really no secret. All history, all evidence from past civilizations shows this degradation to tyranny. It is what the founding fathers spoke of, and for which they instilled checks and balances: checking government.

The liberal/democrat party agenda is as plain as the full moon. Look up, my fellow citizens, and see it for what it is. Compare it against the light of constitutional republic, the balance of individual rights and majority rule; the balance of federal tyranny and states’ rights; the balance of left-wing tyranny and right wing anarchy (the original delineations). Show us; reference any word spoken by a democrat politician that speaks of or defends any of the aforementioned individual guarantees and freedoms. 

What we see with liberals and the democrat party is that change is inevitable, but they constantly try to force change upon others: change they engineer and from which only they benefit.

Again, can a single liberal or democrat politician provide fundamental, principled historical backing for socialism being a beneficial institution for the majority of the citizenry of any country? Did ruthless Russian bolshevism/communism provide freedoms and leisure for Russians, or did it slaughter 30 to 40 million people? Did Maoist communism provide freedoms and security for the Chinese or did it eliminate approximately 60 million people?

More recently we witness the absolute degradation of Venezuelan life and civility because of the irrefutable failure of socialism forced upon Venezuelans. Venezuelans are eating their pets and zoo animals. An oil producing country cannot buy oil now.

Socialism is protectionism. Monopoly tries to protect what it has by continually destroying competition. In unchecked government it is called legislation.

Please, tell us how protectionism works in favor of both the masses and industrialists (see Bastiat, “What is Seen and What Is Not Seen”).

Some commentary with historical data, other than democrat party lies, would certainly help elucidate a cause and effect reason to be forced to social engineering at the hands of those that cannot elucidate an argument beyond hate, but the dem/libs avoid and must avoid all real communication, so no dissertation or elucidation to any degree will ever be forthcoming.

We don’t see Christians forcing their will on others. They coax, intreat, invite and send out missionaries to preach and teach. But there is no religious/political union to force and impose upon the masses as there is with the liberal, dogmatic, religious/political force.

Liberals, progressives, the whitehouse caliphate (Obama administration), and the democrat party proper all work and deceive, lie and fabricate to force change that benefits ruler law in the hands of the democrat party politically elite, at the expense of the masses.

Change is inevitable, but dem/lib/commies have no desire to contribute to mankind by changing themselves to work with others. They would rather force, upon others, controlled change with inherent exploitation.

One such forced change, with built in exploitation, for example, is federal taxation. Taxation, indubitably, is change. It changes the majority’s ability to survive by taking from the majority the fruits of its own labor, and giving it to the ruling minority that distributes based on the ruling minority’s needs: first and always foremost, themselves. This is the hidden fist of ruthlessness and ruler’s law in the democrat party regime. This is the warning conservatives, republic-minded citizens, specifically tea party representatives today, all the way back to our founding fathers, have tried to present to America, Americans, and the world.

We, the People, have control of the fist of ruthless rule, but we are unaware of the ruthless control of our lives that slithers its way into our lives. We cannot identify the pretenses or beneficence of the democrat party because the rhetoric and overwhelming promotion of pretentious just causes and dishonest means propagated endlessly by the democrat party and allies, eventually moves We, the People to relax our grip on ruthless rule.

Forced change, by deception, fraud, and fabrication, IS the democrat party; is democracy.

The change may appear to be comfortable, but it is currently only partially comfortable and cannot mysteriously get any more comfortable, except for the monopolizers of power and force. The liberal media lies about conditions constantly. But the greater danger is not that change is inevitable and that comfortable slavery could somehow, out of anyone’s control, degrade to oppression and genocide of Americans. The greater danger is that it is the very plan of those in the democrat party and their adherents and masters. It is their plan to monopolize power: to force poverty on the masses so that the masses cannot rise up in revolt, thus securing the political elite’s monopoly, wealth, and luxury.

This move to totalitarian control is no mystery. It is no fabrication or theory. These things are never mentioned by liberals, progressives, or democrat party politicos because it educates the masses to the democrat party conspiracy that intends to force America and Americans to total slavery.

As I have stated before, do not be afraid of this word, conspiracy”. It is a part of life. When two people talk about meeting at the mall and doing some shopping, they conspire. 

Part of the communication problem is that “writer’s” lie is complex. It does not represent a smart liar, rather an instinctual level of diabolical cognition. The “writer”, like most, if not all liberals and progressives, is animalistic in that he/she/it cannot exert human virtues and characteristics: faith, trust, and patience being three that separate conscionable beings from instinctual animals.

Show me, my fellow human beings, a part of “writer’s” post that reveals trust in my words from the perspective of historical truth? Can liberal maniac not admit, find a common point? Never has a liberal critic of my posts, “granted” me one point, one truth, or one fact. There is no compromise in animalistic, monopolizing: only total propagation of tyranny.

The truth of the Constitutional Republic, for example, is irrefutable, but the principles instilled place “writer’s” monopolizing desires in jeopardy, so the liberals never speak of Constitutional Republic, for example, in a truthful manner. They cannot allow truth to be attached to anything because truth reveals the dem/lib/bolshevik fraud.