Bye Bye Phil, you fraudster!

evince said:
not going to wait for the evidence to be presented huh?

Why am I not surprized you swore on your life that iraq has WMDs too
Click to expand...

The evidence has been presented, they manipulated the data to support a myth! Now what we get is the liberal SPIN on the evidence. We get to hear idiots like you, defend this stupid shit, and keep on blathering about how man is changing the climate, in SPITE of evidence to the contrary!

This has nothing to do with WMD's, or me being right and you being left, science doesn't depend on political affiliation. This is about a FRAUD that has been perpetrated on the American public for the past decade or more, and will undoubtedly continue to be peddled by nitwits like yourself, who can't separate scientific fact from political agendas.
 
Dixie said:
The evidence has been presented, they manipulated the data to support a myth! Now what we get is the liberal SPIN on the evidence. We get to hear idiots like you, defend this stupid shit, and keep on blathering about how man is changing the climate, in SPITE of evidence to the contrary!

This has nothing to do with WMD's, or me being right and you being left, science doesn't depend on political affiliation. This is about a FRAUD that has been perpetrated on the American public for the past decade or more, and will undoubtedly continue to be peddled by nitwits like yourself, who can't separate scientific fact from political agendas.
Click to expand...

I admitted that it's embarassing, and completely undermines any argument they could hope to make for AGW.

It is kinda interesting that you couldn't do the same once the Senate concluded that the Bush admin had manipulated the intel...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think we need to start a new poll. Who is more ignorant in science Dixie or Tinfoil? That one would run neck and neck.
Click to expand...

Om my, the guy with a friend at NOAA... LOL

Puhlease.

Can you show us how that artificial correction was formulated? We know it represents the unusual divergence recent treering growth rates have experienced. They want to make it go away so we can see the climate signal.

That's excellent science-- except for one part-- HOW are these corrections derived? It's not a tough question. They seem to be simply estimated.

Can you find an explanation that can withstand critical review?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Who knows. It's a stupid argument on Tin's part. He believes what he wants to believe and he's only going to accept that which agrees with that. If you go out and look at the vast quantity of peer reviewed literature on climactic change, then it becomes pretty obvious that you can discount pretty much most of what he has to say, out of hand, as the prattlings of an uninformed fool.
Click to expand...

Do you realize the emails prove they conspired to effect the peer review process?
You haven't read a single one, have you. You got your hands over your eyes and ears.

What a loser
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Don'tt waste your time Desh. What Tin knows about science wouldn't cover a postage stamp.
Click to expand...

All you seem to have are ad homs.

Why don't you link us to your sources of wisdom? I find it really humorous that keep implying I don't know the science when I keep posting the CRU code and explaining what it's doing.

You sir, are one biased moron. The world is laughing at you people. Your climate game has been stopped. It's a bit like when republicans had to realize the WMD lie was a scam to drive a war and tidy profits for the globalist war machine. Many people left the repub party after that. Only the idiots remained.

Are you gonna be one of the climate change idiots?
I know for sure you are!
e87tvt.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top