This is a joke right? Quoting your post "The peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician looked at the global average temperature datasets (GAST) which are used by climate alarmists to argue that recent years have been “the hottest evah” and that the warming of the last 120 years has been dramatic and unprecedented." https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...bal-warming-is-fabricated-study-finds.311099/
I was quoting the text of the article. Here is the article - http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ent-global-warming-is-fabricated-study-finds/ That is merely the first paragraph of the article. Do you want me to take the text of every article that you post and claim the text is something that you personally asserted? Let's play this game -- it will be a lot of fun. Because some of the assertions made in the articles you post are just asinine. Once again - I never asserted that the paper was peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal.
You were quoting because you AGREED with the article, you weren't disputing it. You made a NEW thread quoting that it was peer reviewed, one of the very first lines was a line but only 'some of the assertions' were wrong? You are responsible for what you post, there is no point evading responsibility.
Is your claim that you agree with every single line in every single article you post? We are going to have a lot of fun with this, eh? I post some of text at the start of an article to politely provide some context for the reader. They can decide if they want to click the link and read the entire article after seeing some basic information about it. Don't misrepresent being a courteous article poster (where I provide more than just the link) with being a representation of my personal opinion.
I don't quote articles and start thread about them if I don't agree with the TITLE and the opening paragraph. To say that the title, the intent and the opening lines were 'EVERY SINGLE LINE' is extremely disingenuous. The whole basis of that article was wrong since there was no such study but you want to pretend you only agreed with other parts which of course weren't verified either? Right.
No such thing as Hansen's hypothesis. It's called the greenhouse effect. CO2 is the main thing controlling earth's temps. Unitil you can disprove the physical properties of CO2 you are wasting your breath. How are things at the think tank? And the consensus is actually above 99%. No publishing climate scientist denies man made global warming. None. All these facts make your bullshit look pretty silly. Salby? LOL. He's a fool. But the libertarian pro-fossil fuel think tanks love him. https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm
Salby thinks that this is natural. Piehole says...... "I am in the Salby camp. I think he is correct in saying that Temperature is the independent variable and CO2 the dependent variable." yeah right
Indeed, scandalous misbehavior is one thing, crime is another. Both political parties would be well advised not to make too much of the former, and to dismiss charges of the latter until and unless there is substantial, verifiable evidence. We are surrounded by innuendo and intentional disinformation. We have to be constantly on our toes not to be taken in by it. It certainly is fun to speculate however!