Derek Gee wrote:

"Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message
...
Eric Gisin wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=amjn_0feDpcM

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The revelation that climate scientists at the
University of East Anglia manipulated data and conspired to corrupt
the peer-review process

Lie.

Truth! Dr. Mann lied when he cherry picked the data to create the
infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, and he only got caught when the US Congress
subpoenaed
his data. This same bunch lied again when dealing with the Arctic data
(only using 25% of it), and they lied when they applied their
self-described "trick" to hide the decline in global temperatures.

Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry picked from
up to ten years ago when less was known and the word "trick" was a scientist
referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The whole
thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.

Why? Follow the money! All these scientists live off grants and many
have financial interests in carbon trading exchanges (e.g. Al Gore).

If you want to follow the money, look at who profits from petro-chemical
sales and by how much.

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
wrote:

Derek Gee wrote:

"Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message
...
Eric Gisin wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=amjn_0feDpcM

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The revelation that climate scientists at the
University of East Anglia manipulated data and conspired to corrupt
the peer-review process

Lie.

Truth! Dr. Mann lied when he cherry picked the data to create the
infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, and he only got caught when the US Congress
subpoenaed
his data. This same bunch lied again when dealing with the Arctic data
(only using 25% of it), and they lied when they applied their
self-described "trick" to hide the decline in global temperatures.

Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry picked from
up to ten years ago when less was known and the word "trick" was a scientist
referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The whole
thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.


Bull****. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes.
Tree ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap.
The hockey stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit.
And you still have nothing more than half assed theory supporting
manmade warming.

Why? Follow the money! All these scientists live off grants and many
have financial interests in carbon trading exchanges (e.g. Al Gore).

If you want to follow the money, look at who profits from petro-chemical
sales and by how much.
The big evil oil companies stand to profit enormously from fools like
yourself as well:

http://www.globalmotors.net/exxon-mo...ry-technology/

http://www.greentechnolog.com/industry/bp/

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006...phillips_.html

You idiots actually think that the big oil companies are just going to
dry up and blow away but they are the ones developing your precious
power cells, renewable energy as well as solar and wind.
Looks like before long you'll have to invent yourself another bad guy
to hate.

First Post wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
wrote:

Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry picked
from up to ten years ago when less was known and the word "trick" was a
scientist
referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The whole
thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.


Bull****. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes.
Tree ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap.
The hockey stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit.
And you still have nothing more than half assed theory supporting
manmade warming.

Just decades of data from all around the world, and models that predict
increasing weather disasters and the melting of glaciers etc, etc. One
faked media event doesn't even begin to counter the reality that global
warming is man made and getting worse faster than even the scientists
predicted a few years ago.

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:43:08 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:

First Post wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
wrote:

Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry picked
from up to ten years ago when less was known and the word "trick" was a
scientist
referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The
whole thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.


Bull****. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes. Tree
ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap. The hockey
stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit. And you still have nothing
more than half assed theory supporting manmade warming.

Just decades of data from all around the world,

The data shows that climate changes. To say that THIS change is man made
while ignoring that there have been similar changes in the past is a post
hoc fallacy.

Please don't try and rebut with the "this has never happened before"
argument. For one, that is still a post hoc fallacy. Secondly, we know it
did happen before because the data shows this and the AGW frauds were
fretting over the fact that it happened before and among themselves they
admit they have no way to hide that fact.

and models that
predict
increasing weather disasters and the melting of glaciers etc, etc.

1) All the AGW models failed to predict the last ten years. Scientist
call models that don't predict a "rejected hypothesis". That's science
speak for "Well, that was bull**** and a waste of time".

2) The "disaster" thing is an "appeal to consequences" fallacy.

One faked media event

Got proof it was faked? Even the people who had their e-mails exposed
admit that the e-mails are really theirs. Seems you're lying. Too early
for you to murder your credibility like that.

doesn't even begin to counter the reality that global
warming is man made

1) Circular logic. Man made global warming is that which is to be proved.

2) Even the now discredited liars at the IPCC can't call man made global
warming a reality. Only you and Al Gore claim it is "reality". There is
no basis for this claim. I know why Al Gore is lying; he is a commie
stooge who was caught taking a $100,000 in Chinese Red Army Money in the
Buddhist Nuns scandal. (Gore belongs in prison for that...) The Chinese
Red Army stands to make trillions of dollars if they can get Americans to
cut their own throats with this Global warming scam. Now, why are you
lying?

3) The argument for man made global warming consists of:
a) Two correlation proves causation fallacies
(1)CO2 increased and temperature increased, ergo CO2
caused warming
(2) We produced CO2 and atmospheric CO2 increased,
ergo we caused the CO2.
b) A neglectful induction fallacy.
(1) ignoring that solar cycle has a stronger correlation
than than CO2 to global temperature.
(2) ignoring that climate change has happened many
times in the past when man couldn't be the cause.
(3) Ignoring that past warm periods have been periods
of prosperity, not disaster.

And that's just to start.

and getting worse faster than even the scientists
predicted a few years ago.

Yes. The alleged "scientist" said we'd be dead by now. But they've
revised this prediction: it's going to be much worse.

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:43:08 -0400, Fred Williams
wrote:

First Post wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
wrote:

Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry picked
from up to ten years ago when less was known and the word "trick" was a
scientist
referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The whole
thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.


Bull****. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes.
Tree ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap.
The hockey stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit.
And you still have nothing more than half assed theory supporting
manmade warming.

Just decades of data from all around the world, and models that predict
increasing weather disasters and the melting of glaciers etc, etc. One
faked media event doesn't even begin to counter the reality that global
warming is man made and getting worse faster than even the scientists
predicted a few years ago.


Fred will NOT be able to provide references
to the greatest floods, the most hurricanes, the
highest temperatures in the last few years, and
there is not a year warmer than 1998.

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:43:08 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:

First Post wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
wrote:

Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry picked
from up to ten years ago when less was known and the word "trick" was a
scientist
referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The
whole thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.


Bull****. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes. Tree
ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap. The hockey
stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit. And you still have nothing
more than half assed theory supporting manmade warming.

Just decades of data from all around the world,

The data shows that climate changes. To say that THIS change is man made
while ignoring that there have been similar changes in the past is a post
hoc fallacy.

Not at all. There has never been a change like this before. We have
warmed the planet in 50 years what nature has taken tens of thousands of
years to do in the past. The rate of species extinction is high. Before
this is over we will have lost most of the species on the planet. It's a
major extinction even like the Earth hasn't seem in 65 million years.

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:01:11 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:43:08 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:

First Post wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
wrote:

Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry
picked from up to ten years ago when less was known and the word
"trick" was a scientist
referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The
whole thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.


Bull****. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes. Tree
ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap. The
hockey stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit. And you still
have nothing more than half assed theory supporting manmade warming.

Just decades of data from all around the world,

The data shows that climate changes. To say that THIS change is man
made while ignoring that there have been similar changes in the past is
a post hoc fallacy.

Not at all. There has never been a change like this before.

Not true. There have been several changes like this before. And even if
it was true, your argument is a post hoc fallacy.

So what you have is a post hoc fallacy based on a false premise.



We have
warmed the planet in 50 years

Circular logic fallacy. That we have warmed the planet more than a
trivial amount is what is to be proved.

what nature has taken tens of thousands of
years to do in the past.

Actually, the ice age, and the warming, started some 25,000 years ago.
Data shows that these warming periods have lots of variability. We're in
one of those warm periods now, just as the earth was during the medieval
warm period.

The rate of species extinction is high.

Appeal to cause fallacy. "Species are dying, ergo it is human caused."

And if the extinction was caused by warming, they would have gone extinct
during the medieval warm period.

Before this is over we will have lost most of the species on the planet.
It's a major extinction even like the Earth hasn't seem in 65 million
years.

Run for your lives!!!

What you end with is a appeal to fear fallacy.

So, what part of your post wasn't gibberish?

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:01:11 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:43:08 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:

First Post wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
wrote:

Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry
picked from up to ten years ago when less was known and the word
"trick" was a scientist
referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The
whole thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.


Bull****. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes. Tree
ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap. The
hockey stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit. And you still
have nothing more than half assed theory supporting manmade warming.

Just decades of data from all around the world,

The data shows that climate changes. To say that THIS change is man
made while ignoring that there have been similar changes in the past is
a post hoc fallacy.

Not at all. There has never been a change like this before.

Not true. There have been several changes like this before. And even if
it was true, your argument is a post hoc fallacy.

So what you have is a post hoc fallacy based on a false premise.

Fortunately just because you say so doesn't make anything true.


We have
warmed the planet in 50 years

Circular logic fallacy. That we have warmed the planet more than a
trivial amount is what is to be proved.

what nature has taken tens of thousands of
years to do in the past.

Actually, the ice age, and the warming, started some 25,000 years ago.
Data shows that these warming periods have lots of variability. We're in
one of those warm periods now, just as the earth was during the medieval
warm period.

Yes, and slowly over 25,000 years an effect was happening. When things
happen slowly like that species can adapt. When things happen more quickly,
like what we're talking about now, species die off. Man made global warming
is killing off many of the species on this planet. We've created a global
extinction event like the Earth hasn't seen in 65 million years.

The rate of species extinction is high.

Appeal to cause fallacy. "Species are dying, ergo it is human caused."

Species are dying, and it is human caused. The "ergo" was your straw man.

And if the extinction was caused by warming, they would have gone extinct
during the medieval warm period.

No.

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:11:56 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:01:11 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:43:08 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:

First Post wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
wrote:

Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert
the truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are
cherry picked from up to ten years ago when less was known and the
word "trick" was a scientist
referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The
whole thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.


Bull****. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs
running uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake
religion of manmade warming continues to fall apart before your
very eyes. Tree ring data was found to be cherrypicked and
ultimately crap. The hockey stick graph has been proven to be
bullsahit. And you still have nothing more than half assed theory
supporting manmade warming.

Just decades of data from all around the world,

The data shows that climate changes. To say that THIS change is man
made while ignoring that there have been similar changes in the past
is a post hoc fallacy.

Not at all. There has never been a change like this before.

Not true. There have been several changes like this before. And even if
it was true, your argument is a post hoc fallacy.

So what you have is a post hoc fallacy based on a false premise.

Fortunately just because you say so doesn't make anything true.

Yes. You can always just pretend to be stupid and not understand. Maybe
I'll even believe that you're stupid.

A post hoc fallacy is where you say "A happened before X, therefore A
caused X" without proving that A caused X.

So, in this case A = "A change that happened before" and X= "human CO2
production". So it's exactly a post hoc fallacy.

The only way to show X caused A is to do some physics.

Now, you can continue to pretend to be stupid, or...

We have
warmed the planet in 50 years

Circular logic fallacy. That we have warmed the planet more than a
trivial amount is what is to be proved.

what nature has taken tens of thousands of years to do in the past.

Actually, the ice age, and the warming, started some 25,000 years ago.
Data shows that these warming periods have lots of variability. We're
in one of those warm periods now, just as the earth was during the
medieval warm period.

Yes, and slowly over 25,000 years an effect was happening. When
things
happen slowly like that species can adapt. When things happen more
quickly, like what we're talking about now, species die off. Man made
global warming is killing off many of the species on this planet.
We've created a global extinction event like the Earth hasn't seen in 65
million years.

Again you make with the invalid logic based on a fallacy. The fallacy is
that there has been or few extinctions in the past. The fossil record is
full of extinctions, so that isn't even true. The post hoc fallacy I've
explained before.

The rate of species extinction is high.

Appeal to cause fallacy. "Species are dying, ergo it is human caused."

Species are dying, and it is human caused. The "ergo" was your
straw
man.

You really have no concept of logic, do you? The ancient Greeks
considered humans having reason made them different than animals. The
fact that the ancient Greeks invented logic and the barbarians all around
them didn't, just reinforced this belief.

You never proved that climate change is causing extinction, or that CO2
causes climate change, or that we caused the CO2 increase.

And if the extinction was caused by warming, they would have gone
extinct during the medieval warm period.

No.

On 1/3/2010 11:11 AM, Fred Williams wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:01:11 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:43:08 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:

First Post wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
wrote:

Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry
picked from up to ten years ago when less was known and the word
"trick" was a scientist
referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The
whole thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.


Bull****. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes. Tree
ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap. The
hockey stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit. And you still
have nothing more than half assed theory supporting manmade warming.

Just decades of data from all around the world,

The data shows that climate changes. To say that THIS change is man
made while ignoring that there have been similar changes in the past is
a post hoc fallacy.

Not at all. There has never been a change like this before.

Not true. There have been several changes like this before. And even if
it was true, your argument is a post hoc fallacy.

So what you have is a post hoc fallacy based on a false premise.

Fortunately just because you say so doesn't make anything true.


We have
warmed the planet in 50 years

Circular logic fallacy. That we have warmed the planet more than a
trivial amount is what is to be proved.

what nature has taken tens of thousands of
years to do in the past.

Actually, the ice age, and the warming, started some 25,000 years ago.
Data shows that these warming periods have lots of variability. We're in
one of those warm periods now, just as the earth was during the medieval
warm period.

Yes, and slowly over 25,000 years an effect was happening. When things
happen slowly like that species can adapt. When things happen more quickly,
like what we're talking about now, species die off. Man made global warming
is killing off many of the species on this planet. We've created a global
extinction event like the Earth hasn't seen in 65 million years.

The rate of species extinction is high.

Appeal to cause fallacy. "Species are dying, ergo it is human caused."

Species are dying, and it is human caused. The "ergo" was your straw man.


Species died before humans and will die after humans..... So there are
very few if any that humans have killed off.


And if the extinction was caused by warming, they would have gone extinct
during the medieval warm period.

No.

Polar bears survived past warming but suddenly they are extinct due to man?

Typical Liberal that has zero logic.


--