Murdered DNC Staffer Seth Rich Shared 44,053 Democrat Emails With WikiLeaks

[jem]

I have produced peer reviewed studies numerous times. wtf are you lying about now. show me the post you are talking about.

you are the one who lied or misrepresented peer reviewed science. you made some crazy statement and then when challenged instead of supporting your statement you wound up linking to something in a pay per publish journal on a different subject.

you now know there is no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 causes warming. just a bunch of guesses and failed models.

How is that peer reviewed climate study coming? Still no links to that study which you quoted as peer reviewed?

 

[exGOPer]

I have produced peer reviewed studies numerous times. wtf are you lying about now. show me the post you are talking about.

you are the one who lied or misrepresented peer reviewed science. you made some crazy statement and then when challenged instead of supporting your statement you wound up linking to something in a pay per publish journal on a different subject.

you now know there is no peer reviewed science stating man made co2 causes warming. just a bunch of guesses and failed models.

Did you forget the fake peer review paper which you tried to pass off as real? This so called paper has no links to any peer reviewed journal, nice try though

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...used-by-data-adjustment-peer-reviewed.310974/

 

[jem]

you are such a lying troll.

you produced a counter article which predated the paper I linked to by years. you article was addressing a different earlier study if I remember correctly.


then when I pointed it out your misrepresentation you came back with nothing of substance.

Did you forget the fake peer review paper which you tried to pass off as real? This so called paper has no links to any peer reviewed journal, nice try though

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...used-by-data-adjustment-peer-reviewed.310974/

 

[exGOPer]

So you start off with

ok please present the examples of old tripe you have shown to be wrong.

while you are at it... why don't you give us a list of all the libertarian positions you have advance on et...

I post the tripe you have been wrong about aka a fake paper you tried to pass off as peer reviewd

Your response

you are such a lying troll.

you produced a counter article which predated the paper I linked to by years. you article was addressing a different earlier study if I remember correctly.


then when I pointed it out your misrepresentation you came back with nothing of substance.

What the fuck did I lie about, I caught you lying just as you asked

And what has my 'producing a counter article' got to do with the fake paper anyway? I wasn't addressing anything, you STARTED a thread saying the paper was peer reviewed when it wasn't - did you even click the link

What misrepresentation could I have posted in a thread STARTED by you?

Are all Cons dumb and disingenuous like you? Never taking ANY responsibility for the tripe they post?

 

[jem]

you produced a bullshit counter article which seems to have predated the peer review paper I posted

you have a split from reality. you not only did not catch me lying, all you did was produce a counter paper... which it seems was addressing a different study.

proof...

your articles from about Feb 2017 seems to be addressing a different paper by Karl et al.

the paper I linked to is by Wallace III, D'Aleo and Idso and it came out in June 2017.

 

[exGOPer]

you produced a bullshit counter article which seems to have predated the peer review paper I posted by years. If that is not the case tell us.

you have a split from reality. you not only did not catch me lying.
your counter paper was countering a different earlier study

First, what has my article got to do with the fact that what you posted was not peer reviewed at all, it was a complete sham. My counter paper is completely irrelevant to the fact that there is no peer reviewed paper that you were trying to cite, so ofcourse there is no counter paper as your paper was fake.

Second, your haughty penultimate paragon of reality schtick isn't winning you any points either. Respond to the points, your tripe has been exposed on your command.

 

[jem]

here is the abstract of the paper... I cited.


ABSTRACT The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this research is that the validity of all three of the so- called Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding require GAST data to be a valid representation of reality.
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

 

[jem]

you just changed the subject you psychotic troll... whether it was peer reviewed is an entirely different question than whether I lied. you produced no info regarding whether it was peer reviewed.

you just posted an article with critiqued and different paper.

First, what has my article got to do with the fact that what you posted was not peer reviewed at all, it was a complete sham. My counter paper is completely irrelevant to the fact that there is no peer reviewed paper that you were trying to cite, so ofcourse there is no counter paper as your paper was fake.

Second, your haughty penultimate paragon of reality schtick isn't winning you any points either. Respond to the points, your tripe has been exposed on your command.

 

[exGOPer]

you just changed the subject you psychotic troll... whether it was peer reviewed is an entirely different question than whether I lied. you produced no info regarding whether it was peer reviewed.

you just posted an article with critiqued and different paper.

You posted an article saying it was peer reviewed when it wasn't, that is the evidence of tripe you asked for. And of course I didn't produce any info on it being peer reviewed because it's a fake paper being pushed by fake news sources like Breitbart.

And regarding your 'different paper', I had to post another paper on the data because your paper was FAKE, how can I produce a critique of a fake paper that you posted when it wasn't peer reviewed at all?

Next time be careful when you ask for evidence of your BS, there is plenty to post, how is the whole Seth Rich thing going? LOL

 

[exGOPer]

here is the abstract of the paper... I cited.


ABSTRACT The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this research is that the validity of all three of the so- called Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding require GAST data to be a valid representation of reality.
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

FAKE PAPER

Not Peer Reviewed, can't be found in any peer reviewed journal

Perfect example of the kind of tripe you post