Angry Scientists Slam Their Inclusion on Phony "500 Scientist" Deniers List

Hothead McCain

unread,

May 2, 2008, 9:37:28 AM5/2/08

to

WTF is wrong with you lying scum rightards?

"...The letters are pouring in from angry scientists, with over 45
scientists now demanding that there names be stricken from the list,
some are going much further and threatening legal action.

Here's some more quotes:
I am very shocked to see my name in the list of "500 Scientists with
Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares". Because none of
my research publications has ever indicated that the global warming
is not as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that
the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or
consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric
scientist."

Dr. Ming Cai, Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Florida
State University.
Just because you document natural climate variability doesn't mean
anthropogenic global warming is not a threat. In fact I would venture
that most on that list believe a natural cycle and anthropogenic change
combined represent a greater threat."

Peter F. Almasi, PhD Candidate in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
Columbia University

Why can't people spend their time trying to identify and evaluate the
facts concerning climate change rather than trying to obscure them?"

Dr. James P. Berry, Senior Scientist, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Institute
They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet
their own agenda. This is not science."

Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey
Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the
list which misrepresents my research."

Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of
New York at Buffalo ..."

http://tinyurl.com/6c3ckr

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 10:27:13 AM5/2/08

to

Nobody gives a damn about "angry scientists". They're all liars and
frauds, and they know it. Whores who sell their mathematical
propaganda to the highest bidder. That's all they are. That's all
they've ever been.

ayatollah obama

unread,

May 2, 2008, 10:30:54 AM5/2/08

to

> they've ever been.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You f'n DemonCrap pukes are al the same. Insult your new gOD gore, and
you go f'n spastic... I hope your f'n blood pressure triples and your
pea-brains exploded....!
-------
DemonCraps.... Making the lives of poor people even more miserable!
DemonCraps.... Save a planet, Starve a Nation

Message has been deleted

Sri Bodhi Prana

unread,

May 2, 2008, 12:00:44 PM5/2/08

to

Boy oh boy, are you ignorant. You don't have the slightest idea how
science and research works, do you>

Sri Bodhi Prana

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 1:24:21 PM5/2/08

to

On May 2, 10:55 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

> Stay out of hospitals and airliners, they use scientific instruments
> and mathematics, the language of the DEVIL!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh, I'm not religious. Not particularly, anyway. I just said
scientists are frauds. I haven't the slightest fear of them.

Now, Doctors, on the other hand...

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 1:25:47 PM5/2/08

to

> Sri Bodhi Prana- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Any chance my criticisms of scientists are based on the fact I DO know
how science and research works, these days?

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!

kT

unread,

May 2, 2008, 1:34:05 PM5/2/08

to

Says the guy who claims scientists are frauds.

Using a supercomputer on a high bandwidth network, designed by
engineers using science, developed by scientists.

Message has been deleted

ayatollah obama

unread,

May 2, 2008, 1:37:12 PM5/2/08

to

> Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

They just like injecting the 'fiction' in Science Fiction

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 1:42:39 PM5/2/08

to

> engineers using science, developed by scientists.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, actually, engineers aren't really scientists now, are they?
They're part technicians, part businessmen. Exactly how technically
or business oriented they are depends on their particular situation.

Professional scientists are tenured researchers self-evaluated by peer
review. A recipe for doing nothing, and lying systematically about
it.

Message has been deleted

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 1:48:10 PM5/2/08

to

On May 2, 12:35 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

> are scientists, who use instruments and mathematics, developed by
> scientists. You really have a firm grip on reality, don't you,
> commoner.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh...Doctors are scientists? Jeez, I don't think they know that.
Maybe you should tell them. They seem to think they're Health Care
Service Providers, like nurses. Or, are nurses scientists too, in
your view? Perhaps, health care administrators are scientists, as
well? Priests maybe? Why not dogs, while we're at it.

Actually, most of mathematics was developed by philosophers like
Pythagoras, Aristotle and Leibniz.

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 1:50:14 PM5/2/08

to

On May 2, 12:47 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> On May 2, 12:42 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> Well, if you derived your result by scientific methods, you can't be
> lying even if you are ultimately demonstrated to be wrong. That's the
> beauty of science.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

What a wonderful way for justifying systematic fraud. Are you a
scientist?

Message has been deleted

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 1:54:39 PM5/2/08

to

On May 2, 12:52 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

> No, science is the magic of the DEVIL!

Do you really think so? Actually, I just think it's a bunch of
bureaucrats lying systematically in order to earn a living, while
justifying their existence by taking credit for the inventions, ideas
and developments of amateurs, philosophers and skilled technicians.

last...@rogers.com

unread,

May 2, 2008, 1:55:34 PM5/2/08

to

On May 2, 1:50 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 12:47 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 12:42 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, if you derived your result by scientific methods, you can't be
> > lying even if you are ultimately demonstrated to be wrong. That's the
> > beauty of science.
>

> What a wonderful way for justifying systematic fraud. Are you a
> scientist?

## Nnnnaaaaaahh - He's just another idiot troll

Message has been deleted

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 2:05:45 PM5/2/08

to

On May 2, 1:00 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

> Science isn't about invention, it's about discovery. Those amateurs,
> philosophers and skilled technicians are scientists who incorporate
> science into their results, just like all other scientists.
>
> Science and scientific methods are at the foundation, are the
> fundamental basis, or our entire human existence. You simply don't
> have the intellectual skills to understand that, or science for that
> matter. But you do have an internet connection, and have somehow
> learned to type full sentences, so that qualifies you to be a critic.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Ah. You are adopting the neocon approach to argument. What I say is
truth, by definition, and any criticism of it implies you are mentally
deficient.

Read Aristotle: specifically, "circular reasoning".

You could also take a look at my thread: "Scientific Atheism: The
Religious Left"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/e0b156dc2efe316c

You are turning science in to a kind of fundamentalist religion.

Message has been deleted

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 2:11:48 PM5/2/08

to

On May 2, 1:09 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

> On May 2, 1:05 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 1:00 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>

> [snip trolling nonsense]

>
> > You are turning science in to a kind of fundamentalist religion.
>

> Of course it's a religion, if founded on faith, faith that scientific
> results can be checked, and the devices can be built using those
> results, devices that actually work, and can be used to perform
> further science, and build further devices. Thus you can walk into a
> hospital and get treatment, and hop onto a jet airliner and fly
> anywhere in the world. All science is ultimately wrong, it gets
> superceded by new science and new devices.
>
> You deny that. You are a crackpot.

So, you consider yourself to be a kind of "high priest" of science,
then? Naturally, you would feel the need to cast down those who
idolize other Gods, like myself.

Message has been deleted

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 2:19:42 PM5/2/08

to

On May 2, 1:15 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

> Yes, your God is a fantasy, your religion is a fraud, and your book is
> fiction. Science is none of those things. It's verifiable,
> reproducible and expandable, just like life and nature, because it is
> a human reflection of life and nature.
>
> Fuck your God, your messiah and your so called book. It's nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You seem a bit confused. Not that I didn't already know that already,
actually.

I'm not a Christian.

kT

unread,

May 2, 2008, 2:31:18 PM5/2/08

to

I wasn't talking about Christians specifically, but the comment
applies.

I don't care what you are, if you are not a scientist, if you don't
incorporate scientific methods in your daily life, if you don't even
make an attempt to understand things you don't understand, and then
you criticize that which you don't even know, you're an idiot an
asshole.

I made a pact to myself not to take any nonsense from assholes like
you without responding. The same applies to athiests and agnostics as
well. Whatever you believe in, if it isn't science, fuck off. Science
is demonstrably the only thing that actually works in the real world.

Get used to it. I've got a following, and it's growing.

Plus, I have science on my side.

You don't have a chance.

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 2:40:13 PM5/2/08

to

> You don't have a chance.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So, Science is your Religion, your God, your Empire, your Saviour,
your Eternity, your Paradise.

You are eternal and almighty. Science Loves You.

Message has been deleted

Kevin Cunningham

unread,

May 2, 2008, 2:54:20 PM5/2/08

to

Aaaaahhhh, poor widdle Jerry. Does it hurt when your wrong, time
after time widdle Jerry? Get used to it or get educated. Try and
think for a minute, try real hard, these guys have doctorates, did
post doc work and are now on track for tenure.

And your not. These folks actually know something. They don't sell
out but you'd sell out, happily, if some one offered you enough. Say
about $1.50.

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 2:56:24 PM5/2/08

to

> about $1.50.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Are you saying something?

What, exactly?

Kevin Cunningham

unread,

May 2, 2008, 2:57:27 PM5/2/08

to

Hate to point this out but it takes a lot more work to become a
scientist than a doctor..... Three years to go from BS to Doctor of
Medicine while it takes at least 3 years to get a masters and at least
3 years to get a doctorate (Ph.D.). Then their is a bunch of years
post-docing it.

Moron.

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 2, 2008, 3:00:42 PM5/2/08

to

> Moron.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Ah. You're pointing out that no one with the slightest intelligence,
creativity, independence or courage would want to waste their time
getting a Ph.D. Yes, I agree.

May 3, 2008, 4:39:25 AM5/3/08

to

"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote

> Actually, most of mathematics was developed by philosophers like
> Pythagoras, Aristotle and Leibniz.

MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

unread,

May 3, 2008, 11:03:24 AM5/3/08

to

In article <e7e474f9-d4b3-43b9...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jkrau...@yahoo.com says...

I think what he's try to say is that there are thousands of PhD researchers
all over the world studying the climate change. Their professional reputations
rest on the quality of their research, whether it can stand up to the
scrutiny of their peers, and so on, the "test of time." Your notion that all
these guys, throughout the world, are conspiring to what? Cheat Republicans or
Exxon or whatever is just ridiculous.

V-for-Vendicar

unread,

May 3, 2008, 1:17:26 PM5/3/08

to

"ayatollah obama" <osama.obabm...@gmail.com> wrote

" so.... look at how long Dr. William Gray has been at Colorado State
" forcasting Hurricanes and such

Well, he is 78 and a scenile old coot.

V-for-Vendicar

unread,

May 3, 2008, 1:26:39 PM5/3/08

to

"Hothead McCain" <n...@spamm.com> wrote

> I think what he's try to say is that there are thousands of PhD
> researchers
> all over the world studying the climate change. Their professional
> reputations
> rest on the quality of their research, whether it can stand up to the
> scrutiny of their peers, and so on, the "test of time." Your notion that
> all
> these guys, throughout the world, are conspiring to what? Cheat
> Republicans or
> Exxon or whatever is just ridiculous.

And yet that is the prevailing view among Core RepubliKKKans - the same
people who still think that White House Occupant Georgie Porgie is doing a
Great Job running the country.

They live in a RepubliKKKan fantasy land in which all reality is filtered
through their KKKonservative political blinders, and any truth that does not
support their KKKonservative Liedeology is rejected as nonexistant, a lie,
or a conspiracy against them.

Roughly 25% of the AmeriKKKan public are deeply infected with this
degenerate KKKonservative mental disorder.

Uncle Sam is 1/4 brain dead. and 1/4 insane.

unread,

May 3, 2008, 2:52:29 PM5/3/08

to

On May 3, 10:03 am, Hothead McCain <n...@spamm.com> wrote:
> In article <e7e474f9-d4b3-43b9-903a-d584ddb48...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jkraus_1...@yahoo.com says...

> Exxon or whatever is just ridiculous.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

There is no need for a conspiracy for people to pursue their own
interests. It is in the interests of professional scientists to
attract money to their laboratories, and to do as little work as
possible to get it. They don't need to conspire. They just
spontaneously structure their field to arrange this, along roughly the
same lines: mutual admiration for whatever gets them the most bucks
for the least work. That's why they jumped on the global warming
bandwagon with no real evidence. They saw it attracted money, that's
all they cared about.

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 3, 2008, 3:31:55 PM5/3/08

to

On May 3, 11:27 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> On May 3, 12:27 pm, "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Now, who collected these "quotes"?
>
> > A website called "DeSmogBlog". Now, let's read their mission
> > statement, shall we?

.

> > "DeSmogBlog thoroughly investigates the academic and industry
> > backgrounds of those involved in the PR spin campaigns that are
> > confusing the public and stalling action on global warming."

.

> That would be the Heartland Institute and Dennis Avery.
.
> > Oh, yeah, this is an impartial source. NEXT!!!!

.

> The Heartland Institute lied. Clearly they lied.

.
If that were so, it would be a major story - not one limited to an
obscure agenda blogsite. In any case, evern DeSmogBlog can only
claim a few dozen out of several hundred scientists were misquoted.

.
> Yet you continue to deny that they lied. You're a liar.
.
> It can't be made any clearer, it has nothing to do with DeSmogBlog.

.
I think that the global warming fanatics have gone off the deep end.

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 3, 2008, 3:33:43 PM5/3/08

to

.
> > Nobody gives a damn about "angry scientists". They're all liars and
> > frauds, and they know it. Whores who sell their mathematical
> > propaganda to the highest bidder. That's all they are. That's all
> > they've ever been.
.
> Aaaaahhhh, poor widdle Jerry. Does it hurt when your wrong, time
> after time widdle Jerry? Get used to it or get educated. Try and
> think for a minute, try real hard, these guys have doctorates, did
> post doc work and are now on track for tenure.
.
> And your not. These folks actually know something. They don't sell
> out but you'd sell out, happily, if some one offered you enough. Say
> about $1.50.

.
You understand that the above observations are literal gibberish,
don't you?

Message has been deleted

kT

unread,

May 3, 2008, 4:20:16 PM5/3/08

to

bval...@aol.com wrote:
> On May 3, 11:27 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>> On May 3, 12:27 pm, "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, who collected these "quotes"?
>>> A website called "DeSmogBlog". Now, let's read their mission
>>> statement, shall we?
> .
>>> "DeSmogBlog thoroughly investigates the academic and industry
>>> backgrounds of those involved in the PR spin campaigns that are
>>> confusing the public and stalling action on global warming."
> .
>> That would be the Heartland Institute and Dennis Avery.
> .
>>> Oh, yeah, this is an impartial source. NEXT!!!!
> .
>> The Heartland Institute lied. Clearly they lied.
> .
> If that were so, it would be a major story - not one limited to an
> obscure agenda blogsite. In any case, evern DeSmogBlog can only
> claim a few dozen out of several hundred scientists were misquoted.

Let's see, an illegal war based upon lies, genocide in Iraq, state
sanctioned torture, secret overseas prisons, numerous constitutional
violations, denial of habeas corpus, gagging scientists, domestic
surveillance, corporate cronyism, war profiteering, war crimes ...

The list goes on and on, and the reason that none of this is major news
to Americans is that Americans have been so stupified by 35 years of
Reagan educanomics and the major media organizations have bee NAZIfied.

They didn't misquote them, they lied about them.

>> Yet you continue to deny that they lied. You're a liar.
> .
>> It can't be made any clearer, it has nothing to do with DeSmogBlog.
> .
> I think that the global warming fanatics have gone off the deep end.

You are a true American NAZI. Why do you hate America for its freedoms?

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 3, 2008, 5:01:00 PM5/3/08

to

On May 3, 3:07 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

> > A climatologist, I presume?
>
> No, he's a scientist.
>
> That pretty much covers all the bases.
>
> His language is mathematics, the language of the DEVIL!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually, I rather enjoy mathematics, and contribute regularly on
Google math sites. That's why I hate to see mathematics abused by
charlatans or misunderstood by fools like yourself.

Message has been deleted

Jerry Kraus

unread,

May 3, 2008, 5:22:14 PM5/3/08

to

On May 3, 4:12 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

> > Actually, I rather enjoy mathematics, and contribute regularly on
> > Google math sites. That's why I hate to see mathematics abused by
> > charlatans or misunderstood by fools like yourself.
>

> Science is easily capable of determining whether or not mathematics has
> been abused by charlatans. So show us some of your math, give us a link.
>
> We'll be waiting.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

This is from the Google mathematical logic site. I pointed out that
set theory and the predicate calculus, supposedly developed in the
early twentieth century, in fact were virtually described entire in
the "White Horse Dialogue" of Gongsun Longzi in 300 B.C. China. A
fellow claiming to be a Ph.D. student in mathematical logic said he
would make it a part of his Ph.D. thesis. Probably not a bad idea.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/49a4d4df6166a08b/14d81c91acf9f081?lnk=gst&q=kraus+horse#14d81c91acf9f081

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 3, 2008, 5:56:55 PM5/3/08

to

.
There's a problem when leftists keep repeating the same childish half-
truths and lies over and over and over - they start to believe them.
And that way lies madness.

"For with his Dulcinea
Beside him so to stand,
A man can do quite anything,
Outfly the bird upon the wing,
Hold moonlight in his hand.

Yet if you build your life on dreams
It's prudent to recall,
A man with moonlight in his hand
Has nothing there at all.

There is no Dulcinea,
She's made of flame and air...
The Padre
"To Each His Dulcinea"
Man of La Mancha

> They didn't misquote them, they lied about them.

.
So sez some guy with a blog who's only credentials is a bootleg copy
of "Dreamweaver" and very bad taste in logos. I repeat, if there were
an ounce of truth to this story, it would be recycled 24/7 on CNN.

> >> Yet you continue to deny that they lied. You're a liar.
.
> >> It can't be made any clearer, it has nothing to do with DeSmogBlog.

..

> > I think that the global warming fanatics have gone off the deep end.
.
> You are a true American NAZI. Why do you hate America for its freedoms?

.
Democrats understand that what they propose would be disastrous for
American security if actually implemented, so they attempt to blunt
richly deserved criticism by calling everyone who disagrees with them
a Nazi. It's a tactic favored by vulnerable frauds like former
Congressman Mark Foley, who introduced family protection legislation
while picking up young hunks in the men's room.

Message has been deleted

V-for-Vendicar

unread,

May 3, 2008, 6:32:32 PM5/3/08

to

"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote

> This is from the Google mathematical logic site. I pointed out that
> set theory and the predicate calculus, supposedly developed in the
> early twentieth century, in fact were virtually described entire in
> the "White Horse Dialogue"

A worthless waste of time.

Much like your life.

V-for-Vendicar

unread,

May 3, 2008, 6:35:05 PM5/3/08

to

"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote

> There is no need for a conspiracy for people to pursue their own
> interests.

Not everyone follows your KKKonservative Liedeology. Shit Sack.

A current list of the stated Global Warming Conspirators.

01) The New York Times
02) Virtually Every Scientist on earth
03) all of the scientific press, both journals and textbooks
04) All Environmentalists
05) the vast majority of anyone with an advanced degree
06) the UN
07) the IPCC
08) All professional scientific societies, but the Petroleum Institute
09) U.S. Defense Department
10) Wikipedia
11) The World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
12) The National Auronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
13) The British Antarctic Survey
14) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
15) Realclimate.org
16) The Hadley Center
17) The Royal Society
18) The Royal Astronomical Society
19) The National Academy of Sciences
20) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
21) The American Physical Society
22) The American Institute of Physics
23) The Woods Hole Research Centre
24) The American Chemical Society (ACS)
25) The American Geophysical Union (AGU)
26) The U.S. Geophysical Service (USGS)
27) The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
28) The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
29) The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
30) The National Wildlife Federation (NWF)
31) The World Wildlife Federation (WWF)
32) The Audubon Society
33) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
34) Accuweather
35) Greenpiece
36) The world Conservation Union
37) The Sierra Club.
38) The board and article reviewers of the journal Nature
39) The board and article reviewers of the journal Science
40) The staff of Scientific American magazine
41) The staff of New Scientist Magazine.
42) The Queen of England
43) Michael Gorbachev
44) Muammar al-Gaddafi
45) Maurece Strong
46) Bill Gates
47) Ted Turner
48) Warren Buffet
49) Rupert Murdoch
50) Bill Moyers
51) Dr. David Suzuki
52) Stephen Hawking
53) ABC News
54) NBC News
55) CBS News
56) The Public Broadcasting system

57) And lets not forget - Al Gore.

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 3, 2008, 7:25:01 PM5/3/08

to

.

> 57) And lets not forget - Al Gore.

Twenty years ago, much of that same happy few band of brothers assured
the world that by 1990, one fifth of the world would be dead of AIDs.

"Research studies now project that one in five - listen to me, hard to
believe - one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end
of the next three years."
Oprah Winfrey, Feb 18, 1987
"Women Living With AIDS"

Back then, BBS lefties ordered me, in rather forceful, threatening
terms, not to question the certainty of the coming heterosexual AIDS
epidemic. I was called homophobic, an idiot, deluded, evil. There
was a steady stream of demands for my medical credentials. I had the
lists of scientists who had signed on pointed to me. Above all, there
were insults - many, many insults.

In my opinion, the AIDS activists then had a stronger case than the
Global Warming crowd has now, and I didn't back down from them. Why
would I turn tail now?

The second that I'm ordered to take conventional wisdom at face value,
and not question it, is the moment my "bullshit detector" goes off.
And the argument you and Algore has presented stinks to high Heaven.

A quick question: If the science of global warming is so solid, so
undeniable, why has Algore NEVER entered a debate with ANY of his
critics on this subject?

Message has been deleted

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 3, 2008, 7:37:22 PM5/3/08

to

.
> > They live in a RepubliKKKan fantasy land in which all reality is filtered through their KKKonservative political blinders, and any truth that does not support their KKKonservative Liedeology is rejected as nonexistant, a lie, or a conspiracy against them.
.
> > Roughly 25% of the AmeriKKKan public are deeply infected with this degenerate KKKonservative mental disorder.

.
> It's more like 50% from my perspective.

.
> > Uncle Sam is 1/4 brain dead. and 1/4 insane.

.
> Oh, ok, that explains it then. Thanks!

.
> > Do you really think he is capable of competing against the fully
> > functional minds in the rest of the world?

.
Tell me, have any of you guys broken your arm by patting yourself on
the back?

leona...@gmail.com

unread,

May 3, 2008, 8:16:49 PM5/3/08

to

On May 3, 3:31 pm, "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 11:27 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 12:27 pm, "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Now, who collected these "quotes"?
>
> > > A website called "DeSmogBlog". Now, let's read their mission
> > > statement, shall we?
> .
> > > "DeSmogBlog thoroughly investigates the academic and industry
> > > backgrounds of those involved in the PR spin campaigns that are
> > > confusing the public and stalling action on global warming."
> .
> > That would be the Heartland Institute and Dennis Avery.
> .
> > > Oh, yeah, this is an impartial source. NEXT!!!!
> .
> > The Heartland Institute lied. Clearly they lied.

** Not so!! kT is delusional -- he does not know
"clear" from shit <GG>

> .
> If that were so, it would be a major story - not one limited to an
> obscure agenda blogsite. In any case, evern DeSmogBlog can only
> claim a few dozen out of several hundred scientists were misquoted.

> .> Yet you continue to deny that they lied. You're a liar.

** You kT, continue to deny the true facts. You are a liar.

.
> > It can't be made any clearer, it has nothing to do with DeSmogBlog.

** Sure it is. DeSmogBlog's sole mission is to discredit
anything exposing the global warming hoax.

> .
> I think that the global warming fanatics have gone off the deep end.

** Indeed they have -- long long ago.

Message has been deleted

V-for-Vendicar

unread,

May 3, 2008, 8:42:37 PM5/3/08

to

<bval...@aol.com> wrote

> Twenty years ago, much of that same happy few band of brothers assured
> the world that by 1990, one fifth of the world would be dead of AIDs.

Wow, another KKKonservative KKKonspiracy.

They are everywhere.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 3, 2008, 8:51:47 PM5/3/08

to

On May 3, 4:33 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

.
> Because there is no debate except in the minds of the delusional.
.
Ding ding ding ding - bullshit detector, bullshit detector. If one
disagrees with the weather nazis, that person is insane?

There is NO possible debate about the the weather will be link in a
hundred years?

About the WEATHER????

Tell me, if this "science" is such a slam dunk, why did Algore's
prediction of massive hurricanes attacking the US coast in "In
Inconvenient Pack of Lies" not pan out?

If Algore is so correct, why not have a debate with the most
respectable of his critics, and put the debate to rest once and for
all?

If what you say is correct, why must you resort to personal attacks?
.
> Greenhouse gases and climate change, global warming if you will, ...>
.
Oh, that's right, you're trying to distance yourself from your
previous insane predictions by changing the name of what you said.

There is no global warming, so you hope to fool people by changing the
name of the "crisis". Sort of like how Kentucky Fried Chicken tried
to make their greasy bits of chicken parts sound less unhealthy by
renaming it "KFC".
.
>...are firmly established scientific results. The end result will surely be a repeat of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, except on a vastly accelerated time scale, and the only question is how the cold thermal reservoirs, the ice caps and deep ocean, will behave as they absorb that extra heat. You can debate that all you want, ...>
.
"Debate?" What "debates?" We're not allow to debate the point - we
must accept an end of liberty, freedom, and happily take on our new,
exciting role of serfs to the upper class. Scientists who question
global warning are insulted and threatened.
.
>that debate will not reverse the inevitable.>
.
Nor will all your threats keep the fact that we're not facing a
disaster.
.
> Al Gore is more focused on the latter reversal.
.
Algore is a fat, greedy con man who lives in a mansion, uses twenty
times as much electricity as the average American family, who takes a
private jet to private, invitation only, functions where he shrilly
chastises working Americans for daring to drive an SUV instead of
standing in the rain waiting for a bus.

He doesn't tolerate open debate because he knows that his cause would
fold like a house of cards if he did.

V-for-Vendicar

unread,

May 3, 2008, 8:58:06 PM5/3/08

to

<bval...@aol.com> wrote

> Tell me, have any of you guys broken your arm by patting yourself on
> the back?

Nope.

Do you find it increasingly difficult to make a living in the failed
AmeriKKKan state?

We are burrying you.

kT

unread,

May 3, 2008, 9:08:54 PM5/3/08

to

On May 3, 7:51 pm, "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 4:33 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

[snip]

> > Because there is no debate except in the minds of the delusional.
>
> .
> Ding ding ding ding - bullshit detector, bullshit detector. If one
> disagrees with the weather nazis, that person is insane?
>
> There is NO possible debate about the the weather will be link in a
> hundred years?
>
> About the WEATHER????

No, I clearly stated 'climate'. You snipped out what I said, and
mucked up the entire thread, in order to justify another outright lie.
Let me quote myself here so that you can better understand your
dishonesty :

Because there is no debate except in the minds of the delusional.

"Greenhouse gases and climate change, global warming if you will

Clearly I stated 'climate' not 'weather'. You lied.

"are firmly established scientific results. The end result will surely
be a
repeat of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, except on a vastly
accelerated time scale, and the only question is how the cold thermal
reservoirs, the ice caps and deep ocean, will behave as they absorb

that extra heat. You can debate that all you want, that debate will
not reverse the inevitable. Al Gore is more focused on the latter
reversal."

Now contrary to your claim, I clearly inferred here that weather is
the only thing that is debatable. Over time we can't predict how the
energy flows will actually evolve over time, the 'weather', but what
we can be sure of from fundamental thermodynamics, is that the energy
will move from the atmosphere into the heat reservoirs of lower
temperature, the ice caps and the deep oceans, ultimately reaching a
new much warmer equilibrium - a new warmer 'climate'.

Ergo, you are a blatant liar.

Hothead McCain

unread,

May 3, 2008, 9:39:10 PM5/3/08

to

In article <904dc66b-e931-462d...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jkrau...@yahoo.com says...

For your notion to be valid, all these scientists would have to be
engaging in a fraud and willing to face professional humiliation. It
seems really unlikely to me. Here's a simpler explanation: a few giant
oil companies, fearing a loss of profits from reduced demand for their
products, fund junk science to discredit global warming science and
give big money to politicians willing to promote their interests.

V-for-Vendicar

unread,

May 3, 2008, 9:58:02 PM5/3/08

to

>> Because there is no debate except in the minds of the delusional.

<bval...@aol.com> wrote

> There is NO possible debate about the the weather will be link in a
> hundred years?

We aren't discussing weather..

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN

<bval...@aol.com> wrote
> About the WEATHER????

You don't know the difference between weather and climate do you?

MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN

<bval...@aol.com> wrote

> Tell me, if this "science" is such a slam dunk, why did Algore's
> prediction of massive hurricanes attacking the US coast in "In
> Inconvenient Pack of Lies" not pan out?

Maybe becuase he didn't make that prediction.

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

A global warming denialist did.

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

<bval...@aol.com> wrote

> If Algore is so correct, why not have a debate with the most
> respectable of his critics, and put the debate to rest once and for
> all?

He prefers to have scientists speak for themselves.

MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

Gore is a messenger. He's not the message.

<bval...@aol.com> wrote

> If what you say is correct, why must you resort to personal attacks?

What personal attacks?

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN

<bval...@aol.com> wrote

> Oh, that's right, you're trying to distance yourself from your
> previous insane predictions by changing the name of what you said.

I have made no predictions.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

<bval...@aol.com> wrote

> There is no global warming, so you hope to fool people by changing the
> name of the "crisis".

Really? Is it all some kind of conspiracy among the worlds "Socialist"
thermometers?

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

<bval...@aol.com> wrote

> "Debate?" What "debates?" We're not allow to debate the point

Wrong again... You aren't intellectually capable of debating the point.

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

<bval...@aol.com> wrote

> Algore is a fat, greedy con man who lives in a mansion, uses twenty
> times as much electricity as the average American family, who takes a
> private jet to private, invitation only, functions where he shrilly
> chastises working Americans for daring to drive an SUV instead of
> standing in the rain waiting for a bus.

Attacking a messenger doesn't alter the message.

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

And let me give you another message. Soon RepubliKKKans will be legally
hunted for sport like game animals.

I intend to bag as many as possible.

Meanwhile....

Baltic sea ice cover hits an all-time low: meteorologists Sat May 3, 2:08 PM
ET

STOCKHOLM (AFP) - The extent of ice covering the Baltic sea this winter
reached
an all-time low, since measurements began more than a century ago, Swedish
meteorologists said.

"Overall, 49,000 square kilometres (around 19,000 square miles) of the
Baltic
sea were covered in ice compared to the usual 180,000 square kilometres,"
the
Swedish Meteorological Agency (SMHI) said.

That was just over a quarter of the normal level, the agency said. And the
the
ice season had ended two weeks early, it added.

The SMHI also reported lower than normal levels of ice cover in the Gulf of
Finland, and said the Gulf of Bothnia near Finland was hardly covered in ice
at
all this winter, apart from coastal areas.

According to agency records, the highest levels of ice cover in the Baltic
came
in the winter of 1986 and 1987 when 420,000 square kilometres (around
162,000
square miles) of its waters were covered.

V-for-Vendicar

unread,

May 3, 2008, 9:59:21 PM5/3/08

to

"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote

> Ergo, you are a blatant liar.

Another RepubliKKKan found to be a Blatant Liar.

Have you ever encountered a RepubliKKKan who wasn't a congenital and
perpetual Liar?

I haven't.

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 3, 2008, 10:23:31 PM5/3/08

to

On May 3, 5:32 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

> > There's a problem when leftists keep repeating the same childish half-truths and lies over and over and over - they start to believe them.

.
> > And that way lies madness.

.
> These are thoroughly documented truths.>
.
Oh, REALLY? You have documentation of what the weather will be like
in a hundred years? How's that work? When old Biff Tannen visited a
younger version of himself armed with a book of sport records in "Back
To The Future II", he also brought about a copy of "100 years of
weather reports?" How, exactly, do you have a documentation of future
weather?
.
>You have nothing to offer.>
.
Excuse me, you're the one who insists that what weather of the future
will be is settle science, and that anyone who disgrees with your
fundamentalism religion is a fraud.
.
> Here's another fundamental truth :
.
> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
.
> Can you spell unsustainable?
.
And yet Clinton and Obama have promised to increase spending by a
TRILLION dollars a year. Algore wants to greatly increase federal
spending on his global warming fairy tale.

This will mean a much lower standard of living for Americans. Not
Algore, of course. He'll still live in a mansion and travel the world
in private jets. It will mean that working slubs will become defacto
peasants.
.

> > > They didn't misquote them, they lied about them.
.
> > So sez some guy with a blog who's only credentials is a bootleg copy of "Dreamweaver" and very bad taste in logos. I repeat, if there were an ounce of truth to this story, it would be recycled 24/7 on CNN.

.
> So you value credentials over content. Why am I not surprised?
.
WHAT???? Your entire "argument" consists entirely of waving around
the credentials of scientists who support global warming. Suddenly,
the fact that we know literally nothing of the blogger except that he
has a deep pro-gw bias is not a factor?
.
> The Blog offers evidence, statements by the scientists about
> misrepresentation of their results and positions,
.
>what have you got?>
.
Hard questions:

1. If nearly fifty scientists thought they were misrepresented, why
did they wait so long to complain?

2. Why did they complain to as obscure a source as "DeSmogBlog?" Why
not the New York Times? The BBC? Scientific America?

3. Why didn't DeSmogBlog reprint the entire letters? Why cherry
pick excepts?

4. The "scientists" do not write like people who research weather
trends. They sound more like cheap political hacks.

5. Even if I buy this fairy tale, what about the 93% of the scientists
who didn't complain?
.
> You don't like their HTML, therefore their statements are false.
.
Yeah. Sloppy HTML almost always mean "crackpot." I feel the same
about pamphlets printed by people who don't know how to use Quark or
In Design.

.
> > > >> Yet you continue to deny that they lied. You're a liar.
.
> > > >> It can't be made any clearer, it has nothing to do with DeSmogBlog.
.

> > > > I think that the global warming fanatics have gone off the deep end.
.
> > > You are a true American NAZI. Why do you hate America for its freedoms?
.
> > Democrats understand that what they propose would be disastrous for American security if actually implemented, so they attempt to blunt
richly deserved criticism by calling everyone who disagrees with them
a Nazi. It's a tactic favored by vulnerable frauds like former
Congressman Mark Foley, who introduced family protection legislation
while picking up young hunks in the men's room.

.
> No, it has everything to do with mindless propaganda.
.
And by "mindless propaganda" you mean any conservative publication or
blog in existence.
.
> You don't like their HTML, therefore their statements are false.
.
Actually, HTML is pretty much last decade. And, yes, a sloppy website
almost always says "crackpot." It's the same principal I use when
hiring someone - if their shirt is inside out and there are several
typos on their resume, they're not getting the job.
.
> Amazing logic. Clearly you are a liar.
.
Why, exactly?

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 3, 2008, 10:30:56 PM5/3/08

to

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=18012

A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific
Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was
weakening, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation—a larger-scale, slower-
cycling ocean pattern—had shifted to its cool phase.

This image shows the sea surface temperature anomaly in the Pacific
Ocean from April 14–21, 2008. The anomaly compares the recent
temperatures measured by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer
for EOS (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite with an average of data
collected by the NOAA Pathfinder satellites from 1985–1997. Places
where the Pacific was cooler than normal are blue, places where
temperatures were average are white, and places where the ocean was
warmer than normal are red.

The cool water anomaly in the center of the image shows the lingering
effect of the year-old La Niña. However, the much broader area of
cooler-than-average water off the coast of North America from Alaska
(top center) to the equator is a classic feature of the cool phase of
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The cool waters wrap in a
horseshoe shape around a core of warmer-than-average water. (In the
warm phase, the pattern is reversed).

Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and
last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20
to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications
for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity,
droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of
marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. “This multi-
year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or
diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert,
an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale
pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña
occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”

Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña
are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations
of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation.
According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist,
“These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming
caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of
accentuating it.”

NASA image by Jesse Allen, AMSR-E data processed and provided by
Chelle Gentemann and Frank Wentz, Remote Sensing Systems. Caption by
Rebecca Lindsey, adapted from a press release from NASA JPL.

Message has been deleted

kT

unread,

May 3, 2008, 11:42:51 PM5/3/08

to

Er .. because they were too busy actually doing science, and weren't
able to find the time to read crackpot right wing propaganda websites?

Perhaps?

> 2. Why did they complain to as obscure a source as "DeSmogBlog?"

Because the blog informed them of their inclusion on a crackpot right
wing website's list of global warming deniers, perhaps?

> Why
> not the New York Times? The BBC? Scientific America?

Because those corporate institutions didn't practice the kind of
journalistic investigation necessary to uncover such abuses?

Perhaps?

> 3. Why didn't DeSmogBlog reprint the entire letters? Why cherry
> pick excepts?

I'm thinking they are still in the data collection phase. I'm sure a
more comprehensive report will follow once they collect all the data.

Usenet science usually progresses in that matter, it's a new scientific
paradigm.

> 4. The "scientists" do not write like people who research weather
> trends. They sound more like cheap political hacks.

Illucid at best. Try to compose rational response, please.

> 5. Even if I buy this fairy tale, what about the 93% of the scientists
> who didn't complain?

Perhaps they simply don't care what obvious right wing industry funded
shills say on crackpot right wing corporate shill websites? Perhaps?

>> You don't like their HTML, therefore their statements are false.
> .
> Yeah. Sloppy HTML almost always mean "crackpot." I feel the same
> about pamphlets printed by people who don't know how to use Quark or
> In Design.

In other words, you are not rational.

>>>>>> Yet you continue to deny that they lied. You're a liar.
> .
>>>>>> It can't be made any clearer, it has nothing to do with DeSmogBlog.
> .
>>>>> I think that the global warming fanatics have gone off the deep end.
> .
>>>> You are a true American NAZI. Why do you hate America for its freedoms?
> .
>>> Democrats understand that what they propose would be disastrous for American security if actually implemented, so they attempt to blunt
> richly deserved criticism by calling everyone who disagrees with them
> a Nazi. It's a tactic favored by vulnerable frauds like former
> Congressman Mark Foley, who introduced family protection legislation
> while picking up young hunks in the men's room.
> .
>> No, it has everything to do with mindless propaganda.
> .
> And by "mindless propaganda" you mean any conservative publication or
> blog in existence.

Their lies or so transparent that most of us don't even bother to debunk
them anymore. You are irrational and dishonest, I'm beginning to wonder
why I even am bothering with you now. That is clearly your intent, to
waste my time.

>> You don't like their HTML, therefore their statements are false.
> .
> Actually, HTML is pretty much last decade. And, yes, a sloppy website
> almost always says "crackpot." It's the same principal I use when
> hiring someone - if their shirt is inside out and there are several
> typos on their resume, they're not getting the job.

In other words, you confirm over and over that you are not rational.

>> Amazing logic. Clearly you are a liar.

> Why, exactly?

Your posts betray an easily distinguishable ignorance of science.

Hothead McCain

unread,

May 4, 2008, 12:26:50 AM5/4/08

to

In article <fa56ed77-4038-4b37...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, bval...@aol.com says...

What is it you think the Democrats propose?

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 4, 2008, 12:39:45 AM5/4/08

to

.
> >http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/
.

> > A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña

.
> You are just posting articles that you don't understand.
.
From the person who doesn't understand that the heart and soul of
science is to question everything.

Message has been deleted

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 4, 2008, 12:53:39 AM5/4/08

to

On May 2, 11:09 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> On May 2, 1:05 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 1:00 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> [snip trolling nonsense]
>
> > You are turning science in to a kind of fundamentalist religion.
>
> Of course it's a religion, if founded on faith, faith that scientific
> results can be checked, and the devices can be built using those
> results, devices that actually work, and can be used to perform
> further science, and build further devices.
.
No, your faith is that there can not be a God.

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 4, 2008, 12:54:00 AM5/4/08

to

> Yes, your God is a fantasy, your religion is a fraud, and your book is
> fiction.

Prove it.

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 4, 2008, 12:59:20 AM5/4/08

to

> >>> There's a problem when leftists keep repeating the same childish half-truths and lies over and over and over - they start to believe them.
.
> >>> And that way lies madness.
.
> >> These are thoroughly documented truths.>
.
> > Oh, REALLY? You have documentation of what the weather will be like in a hundred years? How's that work? When old Biff Tannen visited a
younger version of himself armed with a book of sport records in "Back

To The Future II", did he also bring back a copy of "100 years of

weather reports?" How, exactly, do you have a documentation of future
weather?
.

(crickets)

.
> >> You have nothing to offer.>
.
> > Excuse me, you're the one who insists that what weather of the future
> > will be is settle science, and that anyone who disgrees with your
> > fundamentalism religion is a fraud.
.

(crickets)

.
> >> Here's another fundamental truth :
.
> >>http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
.
> >> Can you spell unsustainable?
.
> > And yet Clinton and Obama have promised to increase spending by a
> > TRILLION dollars a year. Algore wants to greatly increase federal
> > spending on his global warming fairy tale.

.
(crickets)

.
> > This will mean a much lower standard of living for Americans. Not
> > Algore, of course. He'll still live in a mansion and travel the world
> > in private jets. It will mean that working slubs will become defacto
> > peasants.
.

(crickets)

.
> >>>> They didn't misquote them, they lied about them.
.
> >>> So sez some guy with a blog who's only credentials is a bootleg copy of "Dreamweaver" and very bad taste in logos. I repeat, if there were an ounce of truth to this story, it would be recycled 24/7 on CNN.
.
> >> So you value credentials over content. Why am I not surprised?
.
> > WHAT???? Your entire "argument" consists entirely of waving around
> > the credentials of scientists who support global warming. Suddenly,
> > the fact that we know literally nothing of the blogger except that he
> > has a deep pro-gw bias is not a factor?
.

(crickets)

.
> >> The Blog offers evidence, statements by the scientists about
> >> misrepresentation of their results and positions,
.
> >> what have you got?>
.
> > Hard questions:

.

> > 1. If nearly fifty scientists thought they were misrepresented, why
> > did they wait so long to complain?

.

> Er .. because they were too busy actually doing science, and weren't
> able to find the time to read crackpot right wing propaganda websites?

.
Except that it wasn't posted in a crackpot right wing propagnad
website. It was reported in the New York Times and the BBC.
.
> Perhaps?
.
No. What you wrote simply isn't true.
.

> > 2. Why did they complain to as obscure a source as "DeSmogBlog?"

.

> Because the blog informed them of their inclusion on a crackpot right
> wing website's list of global warming deniers, perhaps?

.
Sorry, wrong again. The article got quite a bit of play - every
person who researched climate knew about it - and it was virtually
impossible that any of the 500 didn't know that they were listed.
That every one of the fifty who complained had no idea that they were
on the list is idiocy.
.

> > Why
> > not the New York Times? The BBC? Scientific America?

.

> Because those corporate institutions didn't practice the kind of
> journalistic investigation necessary to uncover such abuses?

.
Let's try again. WHY DIDN'T THEY WRITE THOSE PAPER A LETTER???
.
> Perhaps?
.
Nope. Pure idiocy.
.

> > 3. Why didn't DeSmogBlog reprint the entire letters? Why cherry
> > pick excepts?

.

> I'm thinking they are still in the data collection phase.>

.
Nope. Either they have the letters, or they don't.
.

> I'm sure a
> more comprehensive report will follow once they collect all the data.

..

> Usenet science usually progresses in that matter, it's a new scientific
> paradigm.

.
Except this is not a scientific investigation. It's hack
partisanship, and an attempt to destroy the reputation of people. An
honest man would print the letters as they come in. DeSmogBlog is
clearly not that.

.
> > 4. The "scientists" do not write like people who research weather
> > trends. They sound more like cheap political hacks.
.
> Illucid at best. Try to compose rational response, please.

,
So, the child who wrote "So what are you, Leonard, a former NAZI war
criminal?" has suddenly discovered the Marqus of Queensbury rules?

.
> > 5. Even if I buy this fairy tale, what about the 93% of the scientists
> > who didn't complain?

.

> Perhaps they simply don't care what obvious right wing industry funded
> shills say on crackpot right wing corporate shill websites? Perhaps?

.
Nope. If my life work was being distorted, I would scream it from the
rafters. I wouldn't wait for a blogger to e-mail me, the first thing
I would do is call the man who distorted what I wrote, and demand a
retraction. If I didn't get statifaction, I'm write to every major
paper in the country.

And yet, not one of the 500 did that.
.

> >> You don't like their HTML, therefore their statements are false.
.
> > Yeah. Sloppy HTML almost always mean "crackpot." I feel the same
> > about pamphlets printed by people who don't know how to use Quark or In Design.
.
> In other words, you are not rational.

.
So, it's not rational to judge a person by their work?

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 4, 2008, 1:01:54 AM5/4/08

to

On May 3, 11:51 am, Sri Bodhi Prana <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 11:55 am, last_p...@rogers.com wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 1:50 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 12:47 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 2, 12:42 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.
> > > > Well, if you derived your result by scientific methods, you can't be
> > > > lying even if you are ultimately demonstrated to be wrong. That's the beauty of science.
.
> > > What a wonderful way for justifying systematic fraud. Are you a
> > > scientist?
.
> > ## Nnnnaaaaaahh - He's just another idiot troll
.
> No, he is a published scientist.
.
So was William Bradford Shockley.
.
.

kT

unread,

May 4, 2008, 1:14:39 AM5/4/08

to

The last refuge of the illiterate and innumerate.

Message has been deleted

kT

unread,

May 4, 2008, 1:23:25 AM5/4/08

to

On May 3, 11:59 pm, "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>> There's a problem when leftists keep repeating the same childish half-truths and lies over and over and over - they start to believe them.
> .
> > >>> And that way lies madness.
> .
> > >> These are thoroughly documented truths.>
> .
> > > Oh, REALLY? You have documentation of what the weather will be like in a hundred years? How's that work? When old Biff Tannen visited a
>
> younger version of himself armed with a book of sport records in "Back
> To The Future II", did he also bring back a copy of "100 years of
> weather reports?" How, exactly, do you have a documentation of future
> weather?
> .
> (crickets)

You reference a Hollywood science fiction movie to justify your
beliefs?

Quite honestly, I'm speechless.

[snip trolling nonsense]

V-for-Vendicar

unread,

May 4, 2008, 3:07:34 AM5/4/08

to

<bval...@aol.com> wrote

> No, your faith is that there can not be a God.

unread,

May 4, 2008, 3:55:25 AM5/4/08

to

On May 3, 3:07 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> On May 2, 2:53 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 2:46 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 1:54 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 2, 12:52 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

>
> > > > > On May 2, 12:50 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 2, 12:47 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 2, 12:42 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Well, if you derived your result by scientific methods, you can't be
> > > > > > > lying even if you are ultimately demonstrated to be wrong. That's the

> > > > > > > beauty of science.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>

> > > > > > What a wonderful way for justifying systematic fraud. Are you a
> > > > > > scientist?
>

> > > > > No, science is the magic of the DEVIL!
>
> > > > Do you really think so? Actually, I just think it's a bunch of
> > > > bureaucrats lying systematically in order to earn a living, while
> > > > justifying their existence by taking credit for the inventions, ideas
> > > > and developments of amateurs, philosophers and skilled technicians.
>
> > > Actually we all think you are a bitter 6th grade drop-out who flunked
> > > science and math.
>
> > A climatologist, I presume?
>
> No, he's a scientist.
>
> That pretty much covers all the bases.
>
> His language is mathematics, the language of the DEVIL!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Take 10 steps backwards, take deep breath, exhale... you now have
polluted the planet. what a crock of shit! you have been endoctrinated
to the point that shit is oozing out your ears.

Open your eyes, the world is in technicolor, not the dull grays of
socialism according to al 'i-have-my-head-up-my-ass' gore.

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 4, 2008, 12:36:55 PM5/4/08

to

.
> > > Yes, your God is a fantasy, your religion is a fraud, and your book is
> > > fiction.

.
> > Prove it.

.
> The last refuge of the illiterate and innumerate.

.
Actually, it's the first question any literate person demands when an
outrageous statement is made as fact.

If someone tells me that worms cause all cancer, I demand proof. If
you possess evidence which proves beyond any discuss that God does not
exist, then please share it with the class.

to

.
> > No, your faith is that there can not be a God.
.
> Do you suffer from the God delusion as well? Denialist..

.
Ah, a Richard Dawkins fan, huh? Did you see him when he guest starred
on "Doctor Who"? Not surprising, considering the melt down which was
filmed when he was interviewed for the documentary "Expelled". The
poor fellow babbled endlessly that instead of God, the universe might
have been created by inter-dimensional aliens.

bval...@aol.com

unread,

May 4, 2008, 2:07:12 PM5/4/08

to

>> Yes, your God is a fantasy, your religion is a fraud, and your
book is
>> fiction
.

> > Prove it.

.
> Goodels theorem dispenses with an all knowing God quite readily.

unread,

May 4, 2008, 2:23:55 PM5/4/08

to

On May 4, 12:32 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "ayatollah obama" <osama.obabma.by.anyn...@gmail.com> wrote

C02 = green house gas