On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 22:54:09 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:28:03 -0800, wrote:

were fully funded and didn't need to lie for the gov't paycheck.

What a load of crap you feed on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat...il_controversy

Which reminds me of something I always find mind boggling... Larry
could have looked that up a long time ago. Instead, he has probably
written, read, and ranted about his logical fallacy hundreds of times
longer than it would have taken to get his facts straight in the first
place. I guarantee you his preference for such dumb choices has
manifested itself weekly if not daily for his entire life. Where
others make a mistake and say "I won't do that again," people like
Larry refuse to learn. And they love to take their mistaken
assumptions and flesh them out with bizarre side notions and
conspiracy theories. Something like buying a rusted out, engineless
Pinto and decorating it with deer whistles and a Class lll trailer
hitch.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...organised.html

Ah, Gunner gets his scientific evidence from the Daily Mail, which
publishes science stories like these:

"Has NASA been keeping a huge UFO near earth secret from us?"

"Woman finds a phallic strawberry in her garden."

"Yew were always on my mind. The tree that looks like Elvis in
profile."

"Shocking sight of skinny model's flabby, cellulite-ridden buttock as
she walks down catwalk..."

You get the idea -- hard science. Hard-on strawberries, UFO
conspiracies and models with flabby butts. Shocking, simply shocking.
And global warming is a hoax, says the Daily Mail. g

Maybe you should try something a little less hyperbolic, like, say,
_The Economist_:

"...This led to a Daily Mail headline reading: "Climategate U-turn as
scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming
since 1995."

"Since I've advocated a more explicit use of the word "lie", I'll go
ahead and follow my own advice: that Daily Mail headline is a lie.
Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995; he
said the opposite.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...ange_and_media

The "lie" may actually have just been ignorance. The Daily Mail
reporter may not understand what "statistically significant" means.
Most people don't, unless they've studied statistics at the college
level. You, for example, certainly don't understand what it means. But
that doesn't stop you from quoting the mistakes.

Need more, Bozo?

Do you have anything you've actually read and understand?

--
Ed Huntress