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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the standard?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I guess you see bread pans.

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

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

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

Okay mom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global warming pre and post test measurements and data. Written 6/21/16

Global warming pre and post test measurements and data.
A real scientist would look at NOAA and the la-la-land liberal fabrications and ask, where is the pre-test? Where is the post test? Where is the control group or control data, and where is the test subject or data?
Did NOAA have satellite pictures back in 1880? Did NOAA take water temperatures in the middle of the Pacific ocean in 1880?
Why the pretense of comparatives? Is it an attempt to trick fools and drones into believing there was data to compare with, way back then?
NOAA admitted some time ago the data that scientists collected over a century ago was flawed. It was a theory, and is still just a theory. The standards and measures for lengths and temperatures is still the original standards, so how could the science have been flawed then?
If NOAA, and the fake NASA site claim the data collected 100 years ago is flawed, why did they adjust everything down? If there is a two percent to four percent margin of error (the standard in science) the data can be adjusted either way. Margin of error accounts for adjustments both ways. Real scientists would know that, and proceed with that scientific methodology, regardless of the outcome. Not so with NOAA. Why? Why does NOAA adjust only to their predetermined agenda? It must be a predetermined agenda otherwise NOAA would have employed real scientific methodology and treated data with a margin of error to correct for either deviance. They refused to do what scientists do.
Did NOAA have satellites in the 1880s, or did they send out a crew daily to measure the ocean surface temperatures in the middle of the pacific? That must have been one hell of a chain of row boats.
A chain of row boats, with the original standards and measures would have been much more accurate, being in the moment when the norms and standards were established, rendering the most pretentious scientific, liberal, political assault on science and technology in the future, moot.
The audacity of these moronic-sub-scientists to think they are more qualified to adjust the standards and measures today of those that made them scores and hundreds of years ago, is astounding.
Every time I go to the sites and check the claims (not even theories), of these buffoon dem/libs, I have to laugh.
It is like mickey mouse, a cartoon, writing a science fiction novel, and dem/libs guffawing and harrumphing when someone asks if the writer is a cartoon. “Oh no, he’s real, they claim, he’s a fact, its true that cartoons can come to life.”
How utterly moronic can these stupid dem/libs get?
And then the pigs, the slovenly mutts, flag, remove and criticize my posts. They attack and allow me, and truth itself, no defense. That is just sick. It is sick, psycho, liberal pseudo-science.
What do we expect from neanderthal scientists, measuring the heat of a volcano by jumping in? Actually they measure it by throwing someone else in, or convincing the ignorant masses to jump in for a free phone.
Morons, dem/lib dimwits, science-retards!

INCONSISTENCIES IN DEM/LIB PROPAGANDA REGARDING GLOBAL WARMING.

Inconsistencies in dem/lib/progressive/eugenicist propaganda regarding global warming.

I do not use that word, propaganda, lightly.

To propagate something is is to create propaganda, but specifically, the unspoken meaning of words, particularly, the word “propaganda” is that propaganda includes an element of deception.

The panacea of global warming is a massive fraud.

To apply “global warming”, or the new co-option, “climate change”,  as the cause for almost everything that the propaganda agents fabricate, is to defer the scientific method, finding cause of effect, and making change. It is tantamount to using a nuclear weapon for a mosquito problem.

First of all, global warming is undefined. It is indefinable, by design. It is an over-generalization meant to cover everything the dem/lib/progressives decide to control.

No matter where we go; no matter what we read or hear, global warming “specialists” pop up with indictments for nothing but fabricated causes, unrelated results and completely disconnected solutions.

On craigslist rantsandraves, in Salt Lake City, one liberal “writer” continues to accuse every incident of weather and democrat party distrust and rejection, on the big bad wolf of global warming.

The big bad wolf, of lore, was never a wolf. What was the wolf? What is the wolf?

The vampire, the killer in the myths does not exist. There never was a vampire. There is no such thing as a vampire (well, except democrat politicos sucking the life and blood out of America). Democrat politicos and liberals is the closest thing to a real vampire in existence. I am tempted to state boldly that even democrats are NOT vampires per se, but who knows for sure how many lives the clintons have personally taken. Maybe they have even drunk the blood of their victims. The big bad wolf is a metaphor but vampirism and satan worship are not myths.  Even though satan the being may not exist as myth claims, Satan worship is not a myth. Vampirism is not a myth either. Histories of 

I remember a picture of butcher-billy-bob clinton hugging a woman in Kosovo. The story is that she was part of a blood sacrifice the following evening and clinton, master mahan clinton, did the sacrifice.

Our local utardia, moron blames everything on global warming, but that does not solve the problem.

It is not intended to solve fabricated problems, proven simply by the fact that the dem/libs offer only political solutions to problems that do not exist. The big bad wolf is a fabrication placed in the minds of unsuspecting victims by others, those who want control of the victims. How are the victims identified? The solutions are never problem related, indicating an agenda supra to the fabricated problems of global hoaxing.

I could refer to an innumerable examples dem/libs present for which the causes are amazingly disconnected.

Our local moron, not so local, an agent working Utah and other locales, admittedly, living over 2,000 miles away, posted an article on Stephen Hawking stated, to paraphrase, ‘the release of CO2 from the ocean floor would elevate temperatures to about 250 degree’.

Who is responsible for that CO2 release? How is that CO2 release my problem or a result of my actions, in any way? Yet, the monster fabricator claims I need to submit to democrat party rule with no cause-and-effect connection: no reason why. How are these two entities related? Obviously, and logically, they are not, but in the minds and fabrications of dem/libs they are related.

They are related by effect but not cause. They are related by the effect of extracting my compliance using a tool of rhetoric, deception, or outright fraud, whichever you want to call it.

it does not matter what cause the dem/lib frauds use, the effect is always submission to democrat party/liberal rule. I am not talking about submission to democracy, or rule of law. I am not making a reference in the least to submission to or participation in Constitutional Republic, self-governance.

When I use the word rule, it is more closely associated with tyranny, despotism, dictatorship, and murderous oppression. This is what the dem/libs offer. If it is not obvious by their use of words, it must obvious in their avoidance of words such as Constitution and representation, and terms such as rule of law, self-governance, and Bill of Rights.

The effect is always centralized rule, taking away our rights to individual decision making and individual opportunity.

The big general “global warming” hoax is designed specifically to give tyranny an excuse to oppress and rule. This is slavery.

But where are the connections to the problems? There are none. Returning to the example of the Hawking claim that the earth will experience 250 degree heat, and doing some research, we discover Hawking never made that statement. In my search for that claim I found no reference by Hawking, at all, to global warming. Hawking, being a scientist, or at least a mathematician, could not, in a scientific vein of integrity, make such a claim.

Surely Hawking understands scientific methodology of proving or disproving a theory or hypothesis.

Surely Hawking would know that an immeasurable CO2 quantity at the bottom of the ocean could NEBVER be traced to the effect dem/libs continually propagate: democrat party rule without opposition or dissent.

What is the actual cause of this fabricated CO2 release?

Why does the dem/lib effect only include a deflection from the undefined problem, the cause of CO2 release? Why does the dem/lib effect avoid the cause of this mysterious CO2 build-up, and the necessity of compliance to democrat party compliance? Is there a real cause or is it a causal claim only?

Should we define the problem of global warming we might be able to attack the causes.

Sticking to the posted, fabricated claim, what is the cause of CO2 release?

If it were dry ice sinking to the bottom of the oceans, releasing CO2 that binds to sediment or rocks down there, then how could we stop dry ice from sinking to the bottom of the ocean, and where and how is this dry-ice created and transported to the ocean? If dry ice were transported to the oceans, would it not dissolve on the way? Why an how does CO2 get to the bottom of the oceans and from where did it spring into existence. The idea that CO2 can be released from the bottom of the ocean is not as far-fetched and ludicrous, lunatic in fact, as to how the CO2 got to the bottom of the ocean? Is CO2 a gas? Does a compound in a gaseous state not rise in water?

Do not expect logic in anything the global warming/climate change writers fabricate. Yes, I used the word writers. I have not found a scientist doing an experiment or measuring a thing related to climate or weather in any of the articles I have dissected from IPCC, NASA, NOAA, AAAS, WMO, or other related pretenses.

What has caused, if we assume even the most insane fabrication to be exemplified, the “gathering” or build-up of CO2 on the bottom of the ocean? Can the pretentious, deleterious effect be reversed? That would be a start to cause-and-effect science and problem solving. But the dem/libs do not want their fabricated problems solved. If they did their claims would include measurements, data and and presumptions, such as one would find prepared as a theory or hypothesis. Nothing is ever forthcoming, except attacks and emotional manipulation.

They do not even want their fabricated problems discussed, hence the deflective and childish ramblings from the discussions.

But let us take this pretense even further. Suppose there actually is a build up of CO2 on the bottom of the ocean: setting aside the deceptive and manipulative impossibility spontaneously springing to threatening proportions,  by this utardia traitor. Suppose we set aside the insanity of claiming something for which there is no data and something for which data cannot even be acquired; what is the cause and how can it be reversed, if that is the goal? 

When global warming is broken down it is obviously not about reparations to the planet.

CO2 emissions from the ocean floor are going to cause 250 degree temperatures, according to global hoaxers pretending to quote Stephen Hawking. HOW?

According to scientists pretending to listen to a fellow “peer-reviewed” guy, pretending, the ocean floor will release CO2 and will cause major catastrophes, 250 degree temperatures are not life threatening, rather life terminating, immediately. Who went to the ocean floor and ensured CO2? Who discovered a change in CO2 levels on the ocean flor? Who measured change, and developed a pattern showing an increase oi CO2 levels of ocean floor pretense? Who did anything, except manipulate fear to force compliance to a ghost on the bottom of the oceans?

The problem; the weird thing about this impending catastrophe, is that CO2 emitted is the earth’s problem, not mankind’s problem. I thought the whole global hoaxing challenge was to stop man’s destructive impact on the climate, but CO2 escaping from the ocean floor, as Hawking states (or is falsely accused) cannot be directly, oddly or even mysteriously connected to anything mankind or any person may have done, especially to such a degree as to affect the whole world.

If so destructive, so potentially devastating to end all life, why are scientists right now, not trying to stop the devastating effect? If 250 degrees is projected, as the dem/lib hoaxers claim, then that is the biggest problem in the world, not man. Will global hoaxer utardia rally mankind? What scientists are addressing this sacrosanct event and who is doing something about it, or is it silly? Maybe we should make a hundred billion tons of concrete and pour it in the oceans to seal the bottom of the ocean from releasing CO2?

The insanity is that the dem/libs are doing what tyranny always does, and they want the same results: total control of all people. There is nothing new to tyranny’s cries for unification to fight an unseen enemy, along with massive surrender of rights and wealth to the criers.

They, the global inciters, hope you, We, the People forget that we are being led to do the same things others in other civilizations have done in the slide to slavery.

We are given only drips of information so we can be convinced the science is there but invisible and/or difficult because of the slow acquisition of data and knowledge, that never materializes.