The biggest most notorious liar known to man

[exGOPer]

I stated that the paper had on page 2 a list of scientists that reviewed and provided the information in text. I never stated the paper was peer reviewed and published in in a journal. There were other threads where we provided Bios, websites, and information on the authors.

Yet you cannot dispute any of the scientific information presented in the paper. Let's have you state exactly where the content is incorrect in the paper. Please site the section and page number.

Everything you posted above is pure junk -- and a perfect example of what the problem is in the politics forum.

Again, that list is from a PDF linked to some random blog, how does anyone verify that those scientists even worked on that paper based on that?

I have no interest in disputing random crap people put out when the source has no authenticity. Time is valuable to waste on such fake news.

 

[gwb-trading]

Again, that list is from a PDF linked to some random blog, how does anyone verify that those scientists even worked on that paper based on that?

I have no interest in disputing random crap people put out when the source has no authenticity. Time is valuable to waste on such fake news.

Well -- ignoring the scientists' own blogs/websites have listed the paper as one they worked and include links to it.

 

[exGOPer]

Well -- ignoring the scientists' own blogs/websites have listed the paper as one they worked and include links to it.

Then link to the scientists' own blog and websites where this paper is listed, just quoting the fake paper again and again doesn't do that.

 

[gwb-trading]

Then link to the scientists' own blog and websites where this paper is listed, just quoting the fake paper again and again doesn't do that.

Guess you failed to read all the previous posts on this.

 

[piezoe]

Forty years from now it will be looked at as the largest scientific fraud in history

I think this will be the case at least before the current century has ended. I have made comparisons between the devotion (this is the best word to describe it) to Hansen's hypothesis with a similar devotion to Lysenko's hypothesis in the Soviet Union and the belief in Eugenics in the Western Nations in the twentieth century. There is something going on with climate, there always is. Evidence against CO2 as the main cause, however, is building in the peer reviewed literature. And the often repeated untruth that there is 90%+ agreement on climate change is of course completely incorrect. Those actually working in and publishing in that area are quite divided in opinion, and the other opinions don't matter. I am a strong advocate for the Paris Climate Accord and for the development of alternative energy sources, but I believe CO2 as a significant driver of climate change has been rather thoroughly disproven at this point. I am in the Salby camp. I think he is correct in saying that Temperature is the independent variable and CO2 the dependent variable. That's consistent with both T-CO2 correlation and the phase relationship, whereas CO2 as the independent variable is consistent with correlation only; not with the phase data. There is a anthro contribution to atmospheric CO2, no question about that, but the half life assumed by the IPCC is at least one order too great. We now know the half life fairly accurately, and the initial guesses were way off. The fundamental problem is that all of these dire predictions have come from admittedly quite defective models of climate. I am a scientist, but not a climate scientist. I have learned through many years of personal experience that one should be extremely wary of jumping to conclusions when dealing with complex phenomena. The media and opinion poles are not a useful means of answering scientific questions.

 

[exGOPer]

Well -- ignoring the scientists' own blogs/websites have listed the paper as one they worked and include links to it.

Ignoring what? When did you post links, you only cited the FAKE paper again and again after lying about it as 'peer reviewed'

 

[exGOPer]

Guess you failed to read all the previous posts on this.

I did read previous posts where you said it was peer reviewed when it was not, is that what you are referring to?

 

[gwb-trading]

I did read previous posts where you said it was peer reviewed when it was not, is that what you are referring to?

I never said it was peer reviewed - so you obviously did not read the posts.

 

[piezoe]

I agree that it is not known if there was any type of civil settlement. However if you follow the suit - it has been dropped twice. Both times before a judge was about to dismiss it anyway on various grounds. The witness ("Tiffany Doe") is unnamed and has recanted - which led to weakness in the suit leaving it to be dropped. I find it very suspicious that when Donald Trump runs for president that this type of suit comes out of the woodwork with no prior allegations on the matter.

From the perspective of most reasonable people the courts case has been dropped twice, no reliable witness, the original case had to be dropped when it was proven Trump was not even in town on the date the plaintiff stated the rape occurred (which is the grounds the judge was about to dismiss the first suit on). The second case listed a range of dates when she was raped by Trump and a magical, nameless witness. From my perspective the individual ("Katie Johnson") who filed the suits is unbalanced, cannot even get dates correct, has no reasonable facts and was probably driven by political promoters -- to any reasonable person this is dis-proven.

Keep in mind I believe that Donald Trump has both verbally and physically mistreated women -- but any reasonable person would view this assertion that Trump raped a 13 year old as unproven, and the proper term should be disproven. Continuously promoting unproven assertions basically is what is wrong today with politically commentary in the U.S. -- Focusing this unproven item rather than the important political issues is what detracts from any progress.

This makes good sense to me anyway. And I have to agree that the timing of this case being filed is suspicious in itself. On the other had Trump himself has made it easy for some of us to believe that the main charge is not as preposterous as it would be if the accused was not Donald Trump. The alleged event happened many years ago, so if in fact it did happen, it would not be unreasonable to find that details such as dates etc. are no longer accurately known. I suppose this is why we limit the time to bring suits.

 

[gwb-trading]

This makes good sense to me anyway. And I have to agree that the timing of this case being filed is suspicious in itself. On the other had Trump himself has made it easy for some of us to believe that the main charge is not as preposterous as it would be if the accused was not Donald Trump. The alleged event happened many years ago, so if in fact it did happen, it would not be unreasonable to find that details such as dates etc. are no longer accurately known. I suppose this is why we limit the time to bring suits.

If you compare this to the Bill and Monica situation -- it is very different. With Bill and Monica there was a clear record of dates/times she visited the White House. There was an entire staff that was concerned with their close interactions and trying to actively keep them apart. There was physical evidence on a blue dress. Very different than the allegations made in the Trump lawsuit in terms of level of evidence.

It is funny that back in the days of Kennedy if a "Monica" type of situation became public - it would be laughed off ("boys will be boys") and the public would not care. The reality back in JFK times was that there were well-known scandals that were politely ignored by the press and population.

Move forward to the Clinton times - when the Monica thing came out they tried to impeach him. For something that would have been ignored in the 1960s.

Now move forward to today - if something came out similar about Trump, he would furiously tweet about it and blame the intern. Congress would do nothing -- and America would spend weeks debating it along partisan lines in a manner ignoring the facts.

What a strange world we have arrived at...