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!