On Sun, 13 May 2007 08:26:26 GMT, Gonzales Architect of Bush Torture
Terminator.org> wrote:
>> Gonzales Architect of Bush Torture wrote:
>>>> Gonzales Architect of Bush Torture wrote:
>>>>>> Gonzales Architect of Bush Torture wrote:
>>>>>>> Rev Turd Fredericks
catholic.org> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:Rux1i.354154$9i2.348425@fe06.news.easynews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolfowitz Mass Murder for OIL wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 12, 10:00 pm, Rev Turd Fredericks
>>>>>>>>>
catholic.org> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> Gonzales Architect of Bush Torture wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rev Turd Fredericks
catholic.org> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:xfw1i.352923 $9i2.193...@fe06.news.easynews.com:>>>>>>>>>>>> nothermark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want basic but decent study on global warming try:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has citations and explanations.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That was a very interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it would be to any sociopath that prefers to get their
>>>>>>>>>>> propaganda from a confirmed organized crime website and think
>>>>>>>>>>> tank.
>>>>>>>>>> So people who disagree with you are criminals and sociopaths?
>>>>>>>>>> That's an interesting world view.
>>>>>>>>> People who violate laws as a career are criminals and
>>>>>>>>> sociopaths. Some criminals and sociopaths agree with me some of
>>>>>>>>> the time and some don't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How would I know? I haven't read the PDF in question. The website
>>>>>>> itself is a known organized crime operation headed and controlled
>>>>>>> by career criminals, but that doesn't imply that every article
>>>>>>> they publish are without exception criminals or even relevent to
>>>>>>> anything here. They also publish quacks for example who don't
>>>>>>> have the brains to succeed at a life of crime, or, for that
>>>>>>> matter even succeed in an academic life either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So basically you are condemning the article without reading it.
>>>>> I didn't condemn the article. I condemned the website as systematic
>>>>> creators of felony frauds. I don't usually read nazi holocaust
>>>>> deniers websites either, but I could predict that a holocaust
>>>>> denier's website would not be publishing reliable numbers of jews
>>>>> liquidated in WWII, and more than an organized crime Global Warming
>>>>> website will be publishing true science.
>>>>>
>>>> You are indirectly condemning the article by falsely accusing it's
>>>> authors or their sponsors of criminality.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you do have two brain cells to rub together after all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If somebody was a holocaust
>>>> denier, they would be denying that there was a jewish liquidation,
>>>> so it would be doubtful you would find any numbers of liquidated
>>>> jews. But we aren't talking about the holocaust. The article is well
>>>> written and you should read it, it may open your mind.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure it is well written. If you are going to counterfeit science,
>>> like the George C. Marshall Institute did with Fred Seitz's forged
>>> article made to resembe an NAS publication, then you want it to be
>>> well written. If you have a lifetime career in crime falsifying
>>> science than you want it to be both well written and also crafted to
>>> deceive.
>>>
>>> Google claims to have indexed over 100,000,000,000 webpages, and I
>>> simply don't have time to read everything on the web. As I prefer not
>>> to support organized crime and their toadies, The Marshall website is
>>> down near the bottom of that list.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you haven't read the article, how would you know it's counterfeit
>> science?
>
>I don't know that it is counterfeit. I know it comes from a website
>publisher denounced for circulating a counterfeit article crafted to
>simulate a national Academy of Science publication. I know quite a few
>other things about the den of crooks calling themselves the George C.
>Marshall Institute, and I know a lot of details about the criminal
>careers of people affilated with, employed by, directing, funding and/or
>collaborating with the the organized crime front operation.
>
>
>
>> You have been asked only to read one article on one of the
>> 100,000,000,000 websites on the interweb, and you have been handed the
>> URL so you don't even have to search all those pages for it. In fact,
>> the article is a pdf so you don't technically have to view the
>> website, it's a direct download. There is nothing false about the
>> science, there are plenty of references some of which you may agree
>> with.
>
>
>You haven't made a case why anybody should waste time with a known
>organized crime science fraud operation and their crafted-to-deceive
>propaganda created to have a science flavor and appearance to simulate
>the real thing. Let's keep in mind that a corrupt former President of the
>National Academy of Sciences, Fred Seitz, taught the platoons of crooks
>how to counterfeit every detail of science-looking frauds. The employers
>are billion-dollar operations, albeit cheap most of the time, but capable
>of spending millions if the return is hundreds of millions or more.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>> fill you in: It is a review article assessing the assertion that
>>>>>> the warming of the planet in the 20th century is an unusual event
>>>>>> in world history. It is very well written and discusses the merits
>>>>>> of measurement and statistical techniques used to answer this
>>>>>> question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds about what you would expect from a well-document organized
>>>>> crime website to be saying on behave of their criminal corporate
>>>>> sponsors.
>>>>>
>>>> You have failed to gives examples of the crimes you claim the
>>>> website sponsors have committed and why that invalidates the article
>>>> which you haven't read.
>>>
>>> Correct observations. Nothing seems to get past your eagle eyes,
>>> except of course about 100,000 science articles on aspects of
>>> man-made global warming, but other than that nothing gets by you. Do
>>> you have more correct observations which you care to share with the
>>> various assembled folks who aren't too far gone in their normal
>>> Saturday night drunken stupor or already laying face down in a puddle
>>> of vomit on their keyboards? It's amateur night open-keyboard at the
>>> usenet cafe, and you are the self-designated entertainment for the
>>> evening.
>>
>> So from what you have said thus far, you have a closed mind and will
>> accept everything you are told without question.
>
>How on Earth could you make that leap in error from what I told you? My
>mind is open to the fact that criminals exist at all levels from
>pickpockets on the bus up to presidents of nations, and all levels in
>between.
>
>My mind is open to the evidence received in Federal Courts, passed
>through due process of law, argued and objected to by an adversarial
>system of justice and adjudicated upon.
>
>My mind is open to studying the history of career science fraud criminals
>in great details, reading their history, looking at cancelled checks they
>were paid for crimes, reading handwritten notes signed with their own
>signatures. I'm open to that.
>
>If you have more, by all means, send me the links. I have hundreds and
>hundreds and hundreds of hours pouring over some of the 40,000,000 pages
>of evidence from trials of racketeers and their henchmen.
>
>I do not, emphatically not, accept what I am told.
>
>Unlike you, I do not blindly accept crap at organized crime websites and
>waste my time with garbage, blindly accepting what known crooks told YOU.
>No, I'm kind of closed to crooks.
>
>It's a rule in science, you see, that the only punishment there is for
>engaging in science crimes is ostracism. Once you are exposed engaging in
>science hoax crimes, there are no science jails or science prisons to
>send you to -- the only punishment is everybody turns their back on you
>and you are cast out forever. Nothing you ever wrote is cited any more.
>You don't get published in any legitimate journals. You aren't invited
>into science conferences or events.
>
>Now you don't have any objections about science frauds and hoaxes. You
>would allow a person caught to try to do it over and over and over again.
>
>That seems to be the central difference between you and I. You are crook-
>friendly, a helper-of-crooks, an aider and abetter of crookedness.
>
>
>
>> That's fine, that's
>> your business. I won't try to persuade you anymore. It's just an
>> interesting article out of 100,000,000,000 web pages, I'm sure you can
>> find something in that lot that suits your needs.
>
>Sometimes I do science and publish it. Not in peer-reviewed journals that
>the public can't read without expensive subscriptions or pay-articles
>that cost $25 per peek. I don't have a career to polish or a CV to fill
>out -- I just like discovering new things and telling people about them
>on webpages of my own. It's much more fun that reading known house-of-
>crooks stuff to find the hidden frauds and clever mindfuck toxic memes
>they put in there.
>
>
>
>>>>>>> The George C. Marshall Institute collects too much money from
>>>>>>> organized crime to publish anything that actually clashes with
>>>>>>> their paymasters goals and plans, but how can you twist those
>>>>>>> facts into a blanket assertion that this piece is actually
>>>>>>> produced by a criminal sociopath? The author(s) might just be
>>>>>>> idiots or morons, for example, and not evil at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shame on you for making an accusation that the author of that
>>>>>>> (unknown) piece is a criminal sociopath without a shread of proof
>>>>>>> offered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shame on you for being an idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Idiocy is not a condition that warrants shame. Aiding and abetting
>>>>> violations of law, commiting frauds on the body politic, and being
>>>>> getaway drivers for organized crime mass murderers, that's
>>>>> something you should feel ashamed about.
>>>>>
>>>> Behaving like an idiot despite having alternatives warrants shame
>>>> and you should definitely be ashamed of yourself.
>>>
>>> Lead the way Idiotmeister. Set the example. Show shame about
>>> associating and luring people to an organized crime website. I'll
>>> watch real close to observe how you do it.
>>>
>> You said it's an organized crime website, not me. You have failed to
>> show any proof whatsoever that it is an organized crime website so
>> enjoy your observations and continue to look like a dumbass.
>
>Of course I did. Scores of dozens of times. Google up keywords Fred Seitz
>crook and you'll find some. Or try Seitz Organized Crime. Try some
>variations and more will pop up. In fact, I cited some facts that with
>practically no effort on your part would turn up criminal associations if
>you looked in this very thread this very hour. Try Fred Seitz RJ Reynolds
>Tobacco TASSC, or as I call it The A.S.S. Coalition, SEPP Organized Crime
>Fraud Crooks. These keywords in various combinations will generate
>hundreds and hundreds of links to factual details about the career
>criminal head of the George C. Marshall whorehouse who was still employed
>there after he was already exposed as a career criminal.
>
>Of course I didn't show the proof. A Federal Court showed the proof. All
>I did was link to it. The reason that it is online is because a Federal
>Court ordered the racketeers (adjudicated racketeers as defined by
>federal law) to pay out of their own pockets to publish the evidence on
>the web. If the court didn't order it, then I couldn't link to it, could
>I? Ordinarily crooks are somewhat reluctant to post on the public web
>evidence of their crookedness and the lists of names of their crooked
>hirelings. Well, it turns out, they need not be reluctant -- the Gotti
>Crime Family could post the list of all their contract hits and all their
>hitmen, times, dates, and amounts paid, and people like you would never
>read it or care. If the Gotti website also posted Global Warming
>denialist PDFs, you would be passing around links and telling people to
>download it.
>
>
If the Gottie website put out a decent article why not reference it?
By your definition I should ignore NPR as I often disagree with their
slant yet it is my favorite news source. On the other hand you
continue to rave blindly that a cited source can't possibly have any
truth to it without looking to see if it does. Too bad your
preconceived notions won't stand up to a bit of challenge. You don't
acccept anything you are told without investigating the source but you
won't read the source.
If you use your source
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png
and read footnote 1 you will find that they conveniently ignore the
prior warm period so they can start comparison at the lowest temp of
the little ice age in order to magnify the current temperature swing.
If you click on the 12000 year chart you will find we are no where
near the prior average for roughly 3500 to 10,000 years ago. Given
that solar radiation is steadily increasing so the planet should be
warming one has to wonder what was going on them to get the
temeratures so high.
And we have yet to play "follow the money".
