ICE CORE SAMPLES AND STUDY

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

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

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

Does the author state it as fact or theory?

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

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

Where is the data?

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

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

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

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

What a loser!

“COOL” CHARTS AND GRAPHS TURN DEM/LIB FAIRY TALES AND RELIGION INTO “SCIENCE”

Fabrications with inflated numbers and tricky emojis 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. I also had a smiley face and a thumbs up emoji. That all made it very science-ish, right.

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) 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 warming/climate change 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 or of, 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 warming/climates change 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. We never see “climate scientists” showing the process itself of making a formula 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”.