Post by kensi
In his 40-something years as an archaeological excavator
Non-Deniers to blame.
AGW doesn't exist for 50% of the year is proven science fact now.
During night, it is 10 degrees average colder than day time
and stays cold for 10 hours no end.
Waaa! Waaaa! wwwaaaaaaaa!!
Glow ball cooling is oppressing me each night!!!
So glow ball wumming doesn't work in the night
and only works when the sun comes out?
So 50% of the time, glow ball wamming doesn't exist?
Climate change now accelerated to 1 degree per HOUR!!!!
As the Sun cums up, the earth's temperature goes up
average 1 degree per hour. And when then Sun cums
down, the globe cools 1 degree per hour.
Climate is changing every hour!
Awe noooo! This is making me crispy and toasted.
Can I have a bacon sandwich to top it all off?
2017 The Hootiest Year on Record (THYoR)
I plotted Amerikkka's hootiest climate trolls cum scientits, and produced
a graph that shows 2017 is the most hootiest climate change year
of all years.
I cannot reveal the numbers because it is personal intellectual property
like this NASA scientit
even though I was funded by the tax payer to do this work.
In Amerikkka, the land of the free,
I can commit any kind of fraudulent research and round it off by
fabricating data, and claim it is personal intellectual
property without anyone peer reviewing the data of
my work until it is published in some official looking Hoot mongering
journal with my fabricated data hidden from peer review process.
My work involved secretly lowering Hooting levels of climate workers
on various pretext pre-1969 so that you can't obviously go back and
check the data, and so when you plot the graph now, every year is now
the most Hootiest climate change year on record!
$$$!! Mission accomplished!
Amrikkkan fsckwit researchers and NASA glow ball wamming trolls
None of the organizations mentioned from NASA to these below:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
have seen Hanson's fake data used to fabricate
glow ball wamming - so if they did not see
Hanson's data, these Amerikkkan institutes are fakers
without seeing any data from Hanson troll to back them up.
The judge wanted to see it:
But the fcktard refused claiming it is personal intellectual property.
There is no such thing as personal intellectual property
when science is funded by the public purse, and
at the very least it is dishonest to take such a position,
which means all the *FSCKING* AMERIKKKAN institutes
who supported Hanson have *NEVER* seen Hanson's data
and fraudulently support fake science which they
themselves have not peer reviewed!!!!!
What a fscking result for Amrikkkan fraud science
and the glow ball wamming meme!!
Glow ball wammers are desperate to keep their meme alive
so they then engage in utterly stuupppidd malpractice
to deceive the public.
How glow ball wamming fraudsters use malpractice to adjust data
There two patterns that glow ball wammers and their
data fiddle methods follow.
It has been repeated enough to be noticed.
1. First part of the fraud is to
adjust older data to make it appear cooler
and then draw the graph. Recent data is left
untouched otherwise you will spot the fraud.
So when the graph is plotted, every years is
now the hottest year on record.
The utter fscking asssholes!!
2. The second part of the fiddle is to claim that
the data they used is personal intellectual
data and cannot be revealed
which may wash in Amerikkka, but it is
fraud in any other country, particularly if
the research is paid for by the tax payer.
Hiding your fraudulent data converts all Amerikkkan
researchers into fraudsters and they should not
be allowed to publish whilst they claim all
their fraudulent data is personal intellectual
data - because it has not been peer reviewed.
A professional scientific peer review process
relies on reviewing the data for checks and balances,
like an accountant relies on the books to check
sample invoices to match up numbers to detect fraud.
So any scientific peer reviewed publisher
is now obligated to check the original data, and
if there has been a fiddle, decline publishing,
and if the data is being withheld, then the
publisher MUST indicate that the data has been
withheld, the reason must be given, and offer
to publish with caveat to the readers that the
entire data set has NOT BEEN CHECKED, so that that
paper did not pass the usual quality checks
needed to be a work of scientific merit that has
been fully peer reviewed.