Search results

I don't think lazy quite explains jerm. It's an ideologically deranged lawyerly lying stance. He doesn't really believe anything he says. Lying through his teeth. He's just like the lawyers that get murderers off. He's like a Jonny Cochran or that Shapiro guy. Lawyers are very well...

Lying again. That is a chart of your IQ. Note how it started at 72 and has been going down.

No he does not. Ricter is a smart man. I don't know if you trolling or just incredibly misinformed, or just plain stupid. Seeing as how you are a Trumper, I'm going with all three.

Yup. Actually, the number of Muslims killed by the West's - mostly the US - actions over the last thirty years is closer to one million. And we are the good guys.

Yeah, they like the pretty flashy things and bombast. And they like being assured that their delusions are correct.

Speaking of tribalism. I think it describes the motives of the deniers pretty well. They need that pack identity to calm their overactive amygdalas.

It's quite obvious that the deniers do not know what a greenhouse gas is. Just incredible ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty from them. And note that temps have done the same thing. Because CO2 is a GHG. Which the denier liars pretend to not understand.

Oh gee, you got me. Whatever will I do. Oh no.

Yeah, science charts always have stuff drawn on them to tell you what to think. Are you idiots serious? Sorry, but I'll stay with what the scientists think and they think the hockey stick is correct.

Pathetic. So easy to just deny. I wish I had that luxury. To be so intellectually lazy.

Interesting theory. Certainly Faux News has been a very effective propaganda outlet for the right.

The scientists don't think so. Gee, who should we believe, you, or the experts? Hmmm.

And absolutely no science to back up your ignorant opinion.

So you are saying that the experts are wrong.

And you are a troll. Or both. I'm going with both. You are essentially saying the National Academy of Science is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft"...

L Details of the claims and counterclaims involve lengthy and arcane statistical arguments, so let’s skip straight to the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick...

I gave you facts. The chart. You simply deny the facts. That's idiotic. So it's fair to call you an idiot.

Yeah, GWB seems to get upset when presented with facts. He runs to the mods, crying like a little whiney bitch.