https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-HUbdEAxo8&list=PLiZxWe0ejyv-FSrj-hlag7UZ5kljfRzxl&index=3

It is amazing that ANYONE swallows his garbage. Sadly, it is in indictment on just how many truly stupid people are around.

Reddit users are not a source either :)

Nor Snopes and many others. :)

lee wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 1:25pm:

Nor Snopes and many others. :)

Wouldnt it have been easier to simply agree that Infowars is garbage, lee-trumpoid?  You just refuse to criticise the orange-dictator.

Plus I'd argue Snopes is believable since they either find sources and confirm or deny myth or so we have no sources and leave it uncofrimed

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 2:52pm:

Plus I'd argue Snopes is believable since they either find sources and confirm or deny myth or so we have no sources and leave it uncofrimed

Lee-trumpoid needs to deflect from infowars and so he brings in snopes despite its very good reputation.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 3:53pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 2:52pm: Plus I'd argue Snopes is believable since they either find sources and confirm or deny myth or so we have no sources and leave it uncofrimed Lee-trumpoid needs to deflect from infowars and so he brings in snopes despite its very good reputation.

perhaps you can point to where I have used Infowars, so that i would need to deflect. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 4:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 3:53pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 2:52pm: Plus I'd argue Snopes is believable since they either find sources and confirm or deny myth or so we have no sources and leave it uncofrimed Lee-trumpoid needs to deflect from infowars and so he brings in snopes despite its very good reputation. perhaps you can point to where I have used Infowars, so that i would need to deflect. ;)

you deflected in classic trump-style, firstly by lying (snopes is a credible source) and secondly, by nor repudiated a clearly fake news site.

you are trumpoid from top to bottom.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

you deflected in classic trump-style,

So you have nothing. Thank you.


longweekend58 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

firstly by lying (snopes is a credible source)

A matter of opinion.


longweekend58 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

and secondly, by nor repudiated a clearly fake news site.

Is that supposed to make sense?

:D :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 1:25pm:

Nor Snopes and many others. :)

You are comparing Snopes to InfoWars? So laf

AiA wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 10:30pm:

lee wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 1:25pm: Nor Snopes and many others. :) You are comparing Snopes to InfoWars? So laf

And many others. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 10:32pm:

AiA wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 10:30pm: lee wrote on Feb 24th, 2017 at 1:25pm: Nor Snopes and many others. :) You are comparing Snopes to InfoWars? So laf And many others. ;)

So laf

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 24^th, 2017 at 11:02am:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-HUbdEAxo8&list=PLiZxWe0ejyv-FSrj-hlag7UZ5kljfRzxl&index=3

Stephen [POST TRUTH] Colbert eh ?

Stephen Colbert makes an appearance in this YT too !             ;D

-------- >


When People Laughed At The Idea Of Trump Actually Being Elected President! [Compilation]
https://youtu.be/zT0Rjc6jKCg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Rjc6jKCg

Yadda, Trump lies. Trump lies all the time. Trump lies when there is no need to do so. Trump is a conspiracy theorist. He believe vaccines cause austim. He believes the Apollo missions were faked and he thinks the earth is flat.

It is time for you to start recognising that Trump is a sick, damaged and dangerous person.

Re Snopes- perhaps you remember this?-

"On 4 February 2017, the British tabloid Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail‘s online site) published an article by David Rose — a longtime proponent of climate change conspiracy theories whose analyses the scientific community widely regards as flawed and deceptive — alleging that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used misleading data in order to rush publication of a groundbreaking climate study and thereby “dupe” world leaders:"

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

In the Mail on Sunday -

"This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’."

"A final, approved version has still not been issued."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4Zej9NDd4


Now nowhere in the Snopes piece does it address the fact that both the land and and sea datasets are unusable. Or that both need replacing. Instead they insist it was a mere oversight that the data wasn't archived. It makes no difference if the data wasn't archived if both datasets are faulty.

You would think that Snopes would address this very basic issue.

As for the Karl et al 2015 paper it has a self-admitted significance of 0.1. A good significance is 0.01, a reasonable one is 0.05. 0.1 is crap.

lee wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

Re Snopes- perhaps you remember this?- "On 4 February 2017, the British tabloid Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail‘s online site) published an article by David Rose — a longtime proponent of climate change conspiracy theories whose analyses the scientific community widely regards as flawed and deceptive — alleging that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used misleading data in order to rush publication of a groundbreaking climate study and thereby “dupe” world leaders:" http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/ In the Mail on Sunday - "This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend. The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’." "A final, approved version has still not been issued." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4Zej9NDd4 Now nowhere in the Snopes piece does it address the fact that both the land and and sea datasets are unusable. Or that both need replacing. Instead they insist it was a mere oversight that the data wasn't archived. It makes no difference if the data wasn't archived if both datasets are faulty. You would think that Snopes would address this very basic issue. As for the Karl et al 2015 paper it has a self-admitted significance of 0.1. A good significance is 0.01, a reasonable one is 0.05. 0.1 s crap.

Remember the Fish People? We are screwed people!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzNeg9D-EZ4

and lee wants to include Snopes in with the infowars garbage?

WHAT ARE YOU???

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 4:55pm:

and lee wants to include Snopes in with the infowars garbage? WHAT ARE YOU???

Perhaps you could critique what Snopes wrote about Bates and Karl.  ;)