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.


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

Written by scientists or dem/libs?

So there are two scientists of dissenting opinions?

Only two? What are their names?

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

I thought the number was 97 percent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

10,883 scientists?

What are their names?

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

Which mind? Who collected the names?

Who did the survey?

Where is the survey information?

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

Where is the publication?

Where is the list of names?


Tell us. Is there a list in Scientific American?

Is there a list of names in Popular Science?

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

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

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

Where is the raw data?

Who are these “scientists”?

Ok, maybe a different approach would work.

Who are the two that do not agree?

Where can we find them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WOW! That is some kind of nightmarish math.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Woo hoo. I win!


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

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

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

NOT on my watch, you filthy pigs!



A real scientist would look at any NOAA “report” and 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, it’s true that cartoons can come to life.”

How utterly moronic can dem/libs get?

And then the pigs, the slovenly mutts, flag, remove and criticize my posts.

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.

RESPONSE TO 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? Two simple numbers qualify as data: how many inches in meter and how many inches in a yard, and the dem/libs reject this process.

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.