Over 59197
politifake

Coleman Politics


Global Warming Is A SCAM -




The man-made Climate Change Hoax Is A.... ....Hoax! -


TAGS: john coleman man made climate change
Rating: 2.71/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

hulksmash - February 22, 2015, 10:26 pm
Too bad they don't allow voting on comments, I would have given this ripe one 1L, though faux would counter that with his ability to vote from at least the three known accounts of his.
fauxnews - February 22, 2015, 12:24 am
Shush. Calm down,Ron. Here, try some coconut cream.
fauxnews - February 22, 2015, 12:23 am
...I'll be in the kitchen, making pop-corn. =)
calron - February 22, 2015, 12:22 am
So basically I should give you what I have already given? Also where are your scientific credentials, as you see that as a requirement for being listened to?
fauxnews - February 22, 2015, 12:22 am
In the meanwhile, how about citing an actual argument or data backing your position rather than simply throwing out a citation like a poker card. BTW..I thought you were "undecided" on this issue? Where is both sides. Waiting on your actual data...
fauxnews - February 22, 2015, 12:14 am
Cook isnt representative of the consensus.Disagree with him all you like- he a quack...like Coleman.He's just trying to take credit for the work of the majority, which hasn't been disproved.If you're a denier,just say so.Otherwise,why discuss this at all?
fauxnews - February 22, 2015, 12:09 am
An abstract????? lololololololololololorofl... Can I list the summary of a book as a reb***al? *chortle* Or a Siskel and Ebert review of a documentary, whilst I'm at it? LMAO.. How about an actual ARTICLE so we can, you know, DISCUSS it? Gave me nada
calron - February 22, 2015, 12:05 am
So here is the type of thing you want, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
calron - February 22, 2015, 12:04 am
So another string of Ad Hominems and non responses backed by untrue statement based off of you=say-so, like "some guy on the internet" is a more valid source than the scientist that disagreed with what Cook said they said.
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 11:50 pm
… to refute the 'facts' as Coleman presented them, there actually have to be some 'facts' presented. Y'know, logic?
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 11:50 pm
...in other words, Coleman's credentials are fair to challenge since the article touted him only to retract that and amend *ahem* the other lies of the article
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 11:48 pm
If you're speaking of Coleman, please tell me what institution gave him his science degree? None. Also, still waiting for you to point out the SCIENTIFIC research he supposedly did, to support his UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion. Ergo; in order...
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 11:31 pm
Untrue.You put up a COUPLE of articles.I looked at them.It didn't say what you thought it said.I went to the same link and got information from the same place that said the opposite of what you said.Can you see the problem with your logic yet?;-)
calron - February 21, 2015, 11:27 pm
So personal attacks because you do not wish to actually read things you disagree with? What you ask for is in the article already supplied.
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 11:24 pm
Then be a big boy and cite the article, and we will discuss that, instead of relying on the skewed opinion of a clearly biased blogger which you tried to pass off as a legitimate source.
calron - February 21, 2015, 11:07 pm
I notice that you didn't bother to acknowledge the paper that the article is based on, and launched and Ad Hominem to dismiss the evidence instead of addressing the facts.
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 2:05 pm
"Oiluminati" X-D lol
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 1:35 pm
A + B = C Basic logic. ie.--> Socrates is a man, not all men are Socrates. ie.--> Just because OTC once said he was a woman in an argument hoping to get an edge over his opponent, does NOT mean all women are represented by his actions. ie.Formal fallacy
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 1:30 pm
Stop confusing the political community w/the scientific community.Science is not a branch of the government even if 'some' work for the govt.Basic logic fallacy:Just because most Republicans are Christian doesn't mean all Xtians are Republican.
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 1:24 pm
Said.No.Historian.Ever.Who.Actually.Understood.What.Franklin.Was.Like X-D He was very much the science man and very much a skeptic of theocracy.He would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the majority of the scientific community, as he did back in the day.
OTC - February 21, 2015, 1:09 pm
The government prior to 1913 wasn't about taxing and controlling, so doubtful that he would.
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 12:47 pm
Wanna bet a Franklin that Ben Franklin today would believe in man-made climate change based upon the methods/evidence? Want to take a wild guess what he'd think of fundy deniers? "We are all born ignorant,but one must work hard to remain stupid."-Ben F.
OTC - February 21, 2015, 12:36 pm
So if the term didn't exist then the action didn't exist? I'll bet Ben Franklin never heard of an entrepreneur but that doesn't mean people didn't undertake a business
DebtToAmerica - February 21, 2015, 10:40 am
nono, its not the "Illuminati", its the "Oiluminati"
DebtToAmerica - February 21, 2015, 10:38 am
well if government funding makes organisations lie for their own benefit, why should you believe that terrorists flew planes into buildings on 9/11? following your logic, they made it all up so the government would boost their funding...
DebtToAmerica - February 21, 2015, 10:34 am
i'm sorry, but claiming that there were scientific theories in 1492 is like claiming that ben franklin owned an iphone.
DebtToAmerica - February 21, 2015, 10:09 am
so, rather than focus on more pressing issues, like the blatant violations of the constitution which have occured in the last 10 years, you're wasting your time arguing against proponents of manmade climate change?
DebtToAmerica - February 21, 2015, 10:06 am
"al qaeda is BS, planes fly into buildings all the time. Thats why they changed the name to ISIS, to protect the guilty"
OTC - February 20, 2015, 9:23 pm
Thanks FN
fauxnews - February 20, 2015, 6:43 pm
...also from the Best-selling album "STUPID SH*T SAID BY 'MURICANS VOL.7" in stores now (where you can find Pork Rinds and other fine snack products.)
fauxnews - February 20, 2015, 6:40 pm
[OTC said]..."Conspiracy? nah, I'm siding with the 3% of scientists that disagree. now you can go pee in the ocean during high tide and claim you "caused" high tide and do something to stop the tides" 2015 AWARD WINNER OF LAMEST COMEBACK OF THE YEAR
OTC - February 20, 2015, 6:07 pm
Conspiracy? nah, I'm siding with the 3% of scientists that disagree. now you can go pee in the ocean during high tide and claim you "caused" high tide and do something to stop the tides
fauxnews - February 20, 2015, 3:48 pm
Nah, my statement is: your fallacious logic is the same used by people who still believe in a flat Earth, Bigfoot, an immortal Jesus, etc. You only recourse when challenging the scientific community is conspiracy theory. terrible argument, Mulder.
OTC - February 20, 2015, 3:23 pm
Your statement is saying that those who denied the earth was flat are the reason people would still believe in a flat earth. good argument
fauxnews - February 20, 2015, 1:53 pm
However, you are proof of "blind denial" and the existence of people who would still believe in a flat Earth. X-D So there is value in that.
fauxnews - February 20, 2015, 1:52 pm
1492? Ridiculous. Science, let alone theory, couldn't truly be called science in the sense we understand it today. Consensus amongst whom? The monks? In fact, the birth of the scientific method is what helped rid of flat Earth and theocratic beliefs
OTC - February 20, 2015, 12:05 pm
At one time the accepted scientific theory was that the earth was flat, and at least one person had blind denial of that consensus and sailed west in 1492
Zeitguy - February 20, 2015, 10:42 am
Always amazed at the absolute blind denial, of otherwise reasonable people, on this accepted scientific theory. But hey, I guess there're some that still dispute evolution.
fauxnews - February 20, 2015, 1:13 am
?
OTC - February 20, 2015, 12:52 am
NASA? you mean that government funded organization? Wouldn't that make NASA a (sock) puppet for the government?
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 7:07 pm
In other words, Cook is just some knucklehead liberal throwing his hat in the ring when he shouldn't.But he himself admits he's a non-climate scientist. He's not part of the consensus.He doesn't represent NASA nor the scientific community. Cheers
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:52 pm
Whatever Cook's flaws are (and personally, i think it is clear he was just trying to cash in on this by trying to arrive at the same conclusions, but with c'rappy methods) he is thankfully independent of the sci-community http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/938
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:44 pm
But, NASA, unlike Cook, is a much better source for consensus scientists, and it is their data which forms that authority...not Cook, not Hulme, not any one opinion. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:32 pm
Cook suggests an "invitation" system (lol) which introduces bias into any objective study and violates the foundations of what a consensus should be...and essentially goes against the bedrock of science itself.
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:30 pm
As for conspiracy theorist John Cook, he's unqualified in this field and his advocacy is disguised as science, arguing against experts in the field...which is ridiculous.
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:22 pm
P.S. You also dodged the indictment of "your source" which revealed the heavy weight scientist in your article (Mike Hulme)is an evangelical Christian who thinks the world is 6000 years old.Those are the "scientists" who got your back. Good luck with that
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:20 pm
...demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon. Hence why it is considered a consensus and why you keep relying on conspiracy theory. Sorry...but I don't think the Iluminati are behind it.Stop confusing populism with academia.Cheers
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:18 pm
...and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists...
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:17 pm
Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it...
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:16 pm
The consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer.
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:16 pm
As far as the rest of the planet goes, maybe the debate rages on. But the scientific consensus is the current authority among scientists...
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:15 pm
The problem OTC, is you are deliberately confusing a political consensus with a scientific one. The science community has already made up it's mind about this. Who cares what the handful of crackpots think?The same folks who believe in a flatearth,bigfoot
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:12 pm
I know..."Calron"(lol) already tried that. Read the top of the article by Taylor which says "OPINION". It's an OP-ED, not a scientific journal. It's not authoritative. What's next? A picture of your kitchen sink? X-D
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 6:10 pm
You're projecting OTC. Virtually no scientist on the planet agrees with you. And you alleging a conspiracy theory when you suggest a hoax. Childish. In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal:human activities are causing climate change.
OTC - February 19, 2015, 6:08 pm
Keep drinking the 97% Cool-aid http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
OTC - February 19, 2015, 6:05 pm
You missed the point about the 97% Do a little research on John Cook from Queensland University and stop confusing GW with MMGW. I agree there has been GW, I just disagree with your source for its reason
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 4:18 pm
Here, a better source for you OTC, more up your alley ;-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbBX6aEzEz8 Cheers =)
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 4:17 pm
..awahahahahahahaha!!!! *sigh* *wipes tears* And to make matters funnier, OTC, like you,Hulme doesn't understand the meaning of consensus (i.e. it's not a popularity contest).Hence why his work is ignored by ALL his peers and has no authority in his field
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 4:14 pm
Really? *ahem* The main scientist in this article you quoted Mike Hulme is a self-proclaimed evangelical Christian...He's also been ostracized by his peers. Yeah, a man who believes literally in a Jesus hoax is your source about an alleged GW hoax? bwhaha
OTC - February 19, 2015, 3:51 pm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html?m=1
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 1:10 pm
Then again, you were the same person who said "Nixon isn't a conservative folks..."[#70726] Um, surrrrrre... And Clinton really didn't have s'ex "with that woman." X-D Funny. I will consider the source on this one,Freasy. ;-)
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 1:06 pm
"In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal:human activities are causing climate change."If there is a conspiracy,which is the only way to account for"BS"then the burden is on u to prove it.Otherwise BS is the only word you were correct
freasy - February 19, 2015, 12:40 pm
Man Made Global Warming is BS, Climate Change on the other hand as the name has been changed to protect the guilty has always occurred. With or without man.


PREV PAGE