Liberals Tamper With Weather Data, Lie To Advance Agenda

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Christopher Booker?

You mean the Christopher Booker who had a prize named after him in 2009 to be "presented to whoever crams as many misrepresentations, distortions and falsehoods into a single article, statement, lecture, film or interview about climate change". This was called the "Christopher Booker prize".

The first nomination was inevitably Christopher Booker for an article about arctic sea ice with six errors in 900 words.

The same made Christopher Booker that allegations of financial impropriety against IPCC Chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri. These were published in the Sunday Telegraph which subsequently withdrew them after a libel action. In August 2010, the Telegraph apologized to Pachauri after accounting firm KPMG found his business dealings spotless

I have to admit, it takes talent to without fail, find some idiot hack and known liar to repost and make yourself look ever more gullible and ignorant.

Maybe we need a "Vetteman prize"?

 

[Adre]

Christopher Booker?

You mean the Christopher Booker who had a prize named after him in 2009 to be "presented to whoever crams as many misrepresentations, distortions and falsehoods into a single article, statement, lecture, film or interview about climate change".

Maybe we need a "Vetteman prize"?

Good idea, it could go to any and all morons he agrees with.

 

[phrodeau]

http://theconversation.com/why-scientists-adjust-temperature-records-and-how-you-can-too-36825

You need to do the science.

And also: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...eb/04/christopher-booker-george-monbiot-prize

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

This Booker won't stop at AGW-denial and ID-creationism, he is a denier as to the health risks of asbestos.

While it is possible to hold plausible opinions on politics without much expert knowledge, the same is not true of science. Many deniers and cranks do not appear to appreciate this difference - Booker is certainly among them.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

This must be the New $500B A Day Trip To India.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7xqlxK7Dm1rcz0llo1_500.gif

Wonder how many Vette's going to go through and run away from in chagrin this year.

 

[phrodeau]

So, you've personally refuted the accusations in the article? List out the correct data and how you accomplished this.

He's a bullshit artist, and he has been exposed as a bullshit artist.

Are you going to listen to anything Brian Williams tells you? Would you bother combing through his future words to find the lies? Nobody needs to read the crap you posted.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

So, you've personally refuted the accusations in the article? List out the correct data and how you accomplished this.

"Speak only if it improves upon the silence".
- Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.liberonotizie.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/gandhi.jpg

 

[Disgustipated]

10k peer reviewed papers by scientists and only 2 were bullshit. I'll take those odds.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So, you've personally refuted the accusations in the article? List out the correct data and how you accomplished this.

Anything that moron publishes is bound to be complete bullshit, just like anything you post on Lit.

I don't have to refute the assertions of someone who is a known liar and crackpot on the subject. Anything that he publishes regarding climate or pretty much anything else remotely having to do with science can safely be dismissed out of hand. Hell, his "proof" in the link you posted is another climate skeptic with a blog.

I think we definitely need a "Vettemoron Award". Who can bronze a big steaming pile of Bull shit?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Back to the article. Have you refuted the facts asserted in the article?

Point out the facts.

You're aware that facts and assertions are completely different things yes?

Assertion: noun
1.
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:
a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion.
2.
an act of asserting.
Fact: noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened:
Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

 

[unregistered]

 

[BoyNextDoor]

No point in refuting their denial. It puts the conversation on their ground and makes it look like fact of global climate change needs defending, when it is their disinformation, obfuscation and pandering to OPEC and the Saudis that needs defending.

Yes Vette - you are pandering to the Saudis and the Muslims! HAHAHAAHAH! And Putin the and Russian Oligarchs!

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So you cannot refute the facts asserted in the article. You accuse the man of lying and the Telegraph of printing the lies of a known liar, but you have no proof except the convulsions of your failing sphincter that the article is false. We get it, we always get it when you post.

I already posted evidence of his lies and the Telegraph publishing them. The Telegraph was threatened with a libel suit and had to retract his story accusing the head of the IPCC of financial impropriety.

The idiot has a fucking Award named for him for whoever can cram the most misrepresentations, distortions and falsehoods into a single article, statement, lecture, film or interview about climate change. He was it's first winner.

There ARE no facts in the article you posted, merely assertions backed by the word of yet another climate denial blogger. The term is "confirmation bias". Look it up along with the definition for assertion and fact.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Point out your proof the article's contention that data was altered to support the global warming agenda.

What part of "The assertions of a known liar and crank can be dismissed out of hand" did you misunderstand?

Should I type slower?
Do you suppose that would help?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Back to the article. Have you refuted the facts asserted in the article?

See post #8.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You have not refuted Homewood's findings, you call them lies and distorions, but offer no proof he is wrong. Typical for you when your world view is shattered by truth.

Paul Homewood is just another climate skeptic with zero scientific background who publishes his "research" on Anthony Watts' pseudo-scientific denialist blog Watts Up With That. As such he shold be afforded exactly as much respect (none) as Booker or Watts himself.

My world view isn't shattered dimwit. I'm laughing at you (as usual) because you're a gullible moron who takes the assertions of cranks as "fact" because it fits what you want so desperately to be true. This despite the overwhelming consensus among actual scientists regarding climate change.

 

[unregistered]