Over 58622

Made Politics

Donald Trump Clothing: Made In China -


TAGS: obama somebody else taxes made it happen
Rating: 4.2/5

More politifakes by GrouchoMarxist

GrouchoMarxist - March 6, 2013, 6:46 am
I hear that libs believe women only think they're being ra**d.
realogic - February 9, 2013, 11:01 am
Oh and also as far as the economy. Who is the genius that decided welfare as good enough to own a home? I'm not defending either side, but that was a huge reason for the recession. Oh yeah and credit cards that have it so anyone can have one.
realogic - February 9, 2013, 11:00 am
Hey Groucho I'd love to hear your intellectual defense on th republican candidates who support the idea of legitimate ra**. Please would love hear your philosophical viewpoints on that.
GrouchoMarxist - September 27, 2012, 1:32 am
I'm stull waiting for any liberal to attempt an intellectual defense of Obama's policies and those Bush policies that crashed the economy... Even so to call obama into question one is labeled racist... They got nothing else.
arnnatz - September 27, 2012, 1:18 am
We should probably start counting the number of times rt relies on the race card when he has nothing (which is at least 95% of the time)
GrouchoMarxist - September 27, 2012, 12:17 am
Wow stool, is that all you've got?
GrouchoMarxist - September 24, 2012, 1:18 am
What else do the voices tell you?
romneyisatool - September 24, 2012, 1:04 am
Yeah, because accusing little girls of being b-asterd children = REAL CLASSY. Nice one. And this year's winner of the AWARD for MOST EPIC FAIL goes to GrouchoMarxist:Professional Internet Sociopath! LOL. Thanx for playing! Woot! And that's a wrap folks!
GrouchoMarxist - September 24, 2012, 12:59 am
#4 on comments.. Can I call Marm?
romneyisatool - September 24, 2012, 12:59 am
P.S. Thanks for FINALLY proving my point. ;-) P.P.S. PWN'D...Good nite.
romneyisatool - September 24, 2012, 12:58 am
TRANSLATION(WTFO):After saying just a day ago how I plan to ignore "Romneyisatool" and take the hide road, I just simply can't do it. He's too good at this. He just PISSES ME OFF TOO MUCH! HULK MAD! *ROAR* SMASH PUNY LIBERAL!!!!
GrouchoMarxist - September 24, 2012, 12:57 am
I'm not attacking the girls, as our faux outrage crowd claims. I'm calling into question our impotent president's ability to cause conception...
romneyisatool - September 24, 2012, 12:57 am
LOL...Ah, I see. So that 'really' hit a nerve with you. Hmmmm. Will remember that moving forward. *sinister laugh*
romneyisatool - September 24, 2012, 12:55 am
TRANSLATION:After saying just a day ago how I plan to ignore "Romneyisatool" and take the hide road, I simply just can't do it. He's too good at this. He just PISSES ME OFF TOO MUCH! HULK MAD! *ROAR* SMASH PUNY LIBERAL!!!!
romneyisatool - September 24, 2012, 12:52 am
TRANSLATION(Groucho):After spending all day denying that I was attacking Obama's children, what the heck,I'll just double down and attack his kids again anyways.I'll throw in a dash of h-omophobia in for good measure too.You got me guys! Yes, I was lying
GrouchoMarxist - September 24, 2012, 12:50 am
4th. I took his words and applied to the concept "Someone else" is the father of those kids. Why don't you faux outrage libs call this racist instead? Mooo already fired blanks in calling it "Hatred"..
romneyisatool - September 24, 2012, 12:49 am
Sacred ground? AHAHAHAHAHAA...This from a guy (you) who makes derogatory jokes about how a man fathered his children & attacks Obama's race by hiding behind phony claims about his birth certificate. That's like a call-girl calling other women promiscuous.
WTFO - September 24, 2012, 12:49 am
TRANSLATION(tool): I'm completely incapable of being intelligent or posting a logical position so I lie about other posters in a vain attempt to feel better about myself. Why didn't daddy love me?? WAAAAAAAAAH! (Ignore this pathetic little troll/tool)
GrouchoMarxist - September 24, 2012, 12:48 am
2nd.. How many times has bamster forgot his children's ages, names, and genders? All seriousness aside.. I want to see their birth certificates. 3rd.. There is a spectre that some believe he is g**.
GrouchoMarxist - September 24, 2012, 12:45 am
1st.. If we create or build something we did it.. It's personal. Our sacrifice helped us attain it. Anyone saying different they are stepping on sacred ground.
romneyisatool - September 24, 2012, 12:44 am
TRANSLATION(WTFO): I'm an enabler to internet sociopaths. Call it "Battered Troll syndrome." When Groucho walks into a room, I stand to attention. SCHWING!
WTFO - September 24, 2012, 12:40 am
claiming that he didn't father those girls. If that's the case, the poster implies that he's their father and owners built their businesses. Did I capture that correctly?
WTFO - September 24, 2012, 12:39 am
Groucho, if I may cut through the comments on this thread. Was the intent of this poster to compare Obama's 'you didn't build that' to his fatherhood? Meaning, your position is that his claim that business owners didn't build their company as false as
GrouchoMarxist - September 24, 2012, 12:34 am
It's been shared 15 times without a hint of complaint or comment until today. Now it's 8th in comments and heded up the chart like a bullet. You faux outrage libs amaze me..
GrouchoMarxist - September 24, 2012, 12:32 am
Made this on 7/18/12.. No comments until today and completely missed by the faux outrage crowd... Sorta like the Mohhammed movie... Libs and muslims have this faux selective outrage thing going on
romneyisatool - September 24, 2012, 12:09 am
Oh, considering that these are the words from a coward (you),your dare has about as much weight and strength behind it as you would find in an anorexic ballerina.You have no credibility on this site as demonstrated by this thread & your embarrassing spins
romneyisatool - September 24, 2012, 12:04 am
LOL You are the biggest coward on this site. We dared you to bet us that Romney would win and you ran away like the scared little chicken you are. Ever hear the saying it takes one to know one? They were thinking about you when they wrote that.BUK!BWAK!
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 11:50 pm
It would be good if you'd just answer the qyestion anstead of being king of COWARD and answer... Roads or business?
crankyhead - September 23, 2012, 10:33 pm
Either you just don't get it, or, you just refuse to get it. Define irony. This should be good.
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 10:04 pm
Man up... Did we not build the roads or the business? Spin spin spin..... Still miss the irony?
crankyhead - September 23, 2012, 9:51 pm
crankyhead - September 23, 2012, 9:51 pm
Still offended and your own inability to understand context are you?
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 9:30 pm
Roads or businesses.... Man up
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 8:46 pm
Look another share... Where's Marm? This things been here all this time and you guys are sending it over the top.
romneyisatool - September 23, 2012, 7:50 pm
Groucho says,"it was 4.06 with 14 shares on facebook" TRANSLATION: Groucho got a speeding ticket today for driving his 80's panelvan all over town to every internet cafe he could find just so he could give his poster 5 Ls from different IP addresses.
crankyhead - September 23, 2012, 7:42 pm
...of course, you're the type of person who gets offended anytime someone tells the truth about something. But if that's the case, the problem is not the speaker, but rather, the listener.
crankyhead - September 23, 2012, 7:41 pm
All those people who got offended by Obama's inoffensive 'you didn't build that' comment, were merely looking for another reason to be offended. If they'd put those four words in context, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to be offended. Unless...
romneyisatool - September 23, 2012, 7:38 pm
Groucho says,"I have a sharp eye for wit and humor..." *spits out coffee on my computer* What?!?! AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA *rolls on the floor laughing* Ladies and gentleman! Meet the only person in the world who believes this...his name is GrouchoMarxist!
romneyisatool - September 23, 2012, 7:33 pm
GrouchoMarxist = Marms's greatest fan. LMAO
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 23, 2012, 7:32 pm

You were just giving another member a hard time last week for talking like that. Save up those points and you can buy yourself a puppy ....or a soul.
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 7:24 pm
It's already jumped 10 points on the comment scale to #30... Keep those cards and letters coming.
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 7:17 pm
Look at the score.. until a couple you 1 pointers sniped it was 4.06 with 14 shares on facebook. You appear to miss the irony of dear leaders words... Just because you got miffed means nothing to me. You live in a permenant state of miffed. odd that
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 23, 2012, 7:14 pm

I don't need to defend the position that its cheap and pathetic to question the parentage of a mans daughters. Any decent person knows that.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 23, 2012, 7:11 pm

No one on this thread agrees with you.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 23, 2012, 7:10 pm

And I'm saying that all you have is cheap sh**s. Which is a pretty low form of comedy. ....there's that word "low" again, funny how often that word comes up when discussing your behaviour.
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 7:09 pm
Not to mention that a lot of people agree with me.
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 6:52 pm
You saying it's "Hatred" is you saying you can't defend your position... It says I have a sharp eye for wit and humor...
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 6:50 pm
But while we're at it... There's a bunch of people who worked their b***s off and took offense at dink in chiefs comments re "You didn't build that"
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 23, 2012, 6:48 pm

It's not humour, it's hatred. And it's petty and small. What does that say about you as a person?
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 6:48 pm
I was getting worried that I needed to a (ahem) explain a few things to you.
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 6:46 pm
d***, Skippy. Did the lights come on? You did pay attention in health class didn't you... Apparently a lot of people here.. (sans yourself) saw the humor and shared it on facebook. Don't know what that says about your intellect...
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 23, 2012, 6:43 pm

You're saying that Obama didn't father his children. That would be attacking his whole family. Cheap sh**s are the reason that no one takes you seriously. Even the other conservatives here are embarrassed by you.
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 6:41 pm
I see the one point snipers dropped me 0.11 but you did vote and the commentary drives up the numbers too...
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 6:34 pm
I'm curious as to where I'm attacking "his" girls? (That's a clue if you paid attention in health class)
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 23, 2012, 6:32 pm

Nothing you've said explains how the poster is ironic or sarcastic. Do you know what ironic or sarcastic means?
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 6:30 pm
Ok, but your father should be the one to tell you..... it starts with the birds and the bees.....
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 6:29 pm
17 votes to boot...
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 23, 2012, 6:28 pm

So what? That doesn't relate to your poster whatsoever. Why waste time with all these petty little things? Say something that matters.
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 6:28 pm
4.06/5 on votes and 14 shares... This poster's been around around awhile and meets general approval... You still miss the point... Color me surprised.
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 6:24 pm
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 6:21 pm
Oh please... You mean your father didn't tell you?
romneyisatool - September 23, 2012, 6:19 pm
TRANSLATION: I'm a terrible liar. What else is an internet sociopath like me supposed to do? Better than going postal.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 23, 2012, 6:13 pm

Explain how this is sarcastic or ironic and not just a cheap sh** at a man's family.
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 5:35 pm
And it's never been how low I go... Remember that
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 5:34 pm
I'm always amazed how sarcasm and irony are missed by you intelligent people..
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 23, 2012, 5:25 pm

Nobody missed the point. We're all very aware of how low you'll sink. It must be lonely down there in the gutter.
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 4:59 pm
And thanks for completely missing the point...
GrouchoMarxist - September 23, 2012, 4:52 pm
Glad you all approve..
Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 23, 2012, 1:34 pm

Poor taste. No surprise. 1L
romneyisatool - September 23, 2012, 12:51 pm
Agreed.These sociopathic haters think they are hurting Obama,yet they are giving him a gift.This is why Romney is losing.Moderate voters see this and say,"I don't want these Tea-bag psychos in control of my country. I'm gonna go with the calm black man!"
Cyberhagen - September 23, 2012, 12:16 pm
God knows I want Obama out of office, but picking on his daughters? To me that crosses a line. Even if the libs did that to Bush's girls, you don't want to stoop to their level.

Got 99 problems -

1100 BC -

" CHANGE " - U.S. Debt Held by Public Tops $10T for 1st Time—Up 59 Percent Under Obama. 61% of it—is owned by foreign interests

scientists agree -



TAGS: e t re made democrat party style
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by foxrecon19d

fauxnews - May 14, 2014, 9:58 pm
Great! 5 stars
terroraustralis - May 14, 2014, 8:58 pm
5L, these are great


TAGS: rambo re made democrat party style
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by foxrecon19d

EmmaRoydes - May 14, 2014, 4:10 pm
Chuck Norris could take him

FROM MICHELLE: THREE SOLID TIPS FOR LOOKING GOOD - 1.'Mix it up' - 2.'Wear what you love' 3.Don’t obsess about your clothes, be practical about them, and make the people around you your focus .

If Spring is here -

Man-made Global warming -

9/11/2010 - TURKISH REFERENDUM - The End of Times Has Begun.

Selective Predictions -

TAGS: somehow predictions are wrong but computer models are correct aren t predictions made by computer models
Rating: 4.8/5

More politifakes by OTC

OTC - May 23, 2014, 7:51 am
Oh look, a man-made retort , now things are heating up. That's scientific
fauxnews - May 23, 2014, 12:25 am
Certainly your b'ull**** is man-made, about all things scientific, that is :-p
OTC - May 23, 2014, 12:22 am
Must be that man-made active volcano causing that
Curlyrocks - May 22, 2014, 10:48 pm
Apparently the Antarctic ice shelf just collapsed so we got what now 2 years?

Diversity -

Sun flares lowest in 100 years could mean a Little Ice Age is coming -

Wasn't long ago the top scientists thought the Earth was flat -

TAGS: man made global warming hoax to raise taxes
Rating: 4.56/5

More politifakes by OTC

fauxnews - March 11, 2015, 2:00 pm
Bogus links to non-scientific sites promoting a mindset not shared by the majority of the scientific community and typically promoted by fools and people with something to gain from continuing destructive practices regarding resources. Sorry,not buying it
fauxnews - March 11, 2015, 1:55 pm
TA was making fun of you trying to compare the state of science in the distant past to that of modern science - in that sense, it's not the same. A lot has changed since then. The only thing dumber than that is the fact that I have to explain that to you.
OTC - March 11, 2015, 1:43 pm
You're wrong faux, scientists didn't exist back then. It must be true, see first comment by TA
EmmaRoydes - October 20, 2014, 4:02 pm
The first one was from nsidc.org and the second one is from answers.com
EmmaRoydes - October 20, 2014, 3:50 pm
Its average thickness is about 1.6 km. The deepest known ice rests 2,555 meters below sea level, where the ice is over 4 kilometers thick.
EmmaRoydes - October 20, 2014, 3:49 pm
The ice cap that covers Antarctica is more than 2100 meters thick in places, more than two kilometers (1.3 miles). This is where most of the world's fresh water is contained. If it melted completely it would raise sea levels by 61 meters (200 feet).
EmmaRoydes - October 20, 2014, 3:40 pm
Antarctic ice is typically 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) thick, while most of the Arctic is covered by sea ice 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) thick. Some Arctic regions are covered with ice that is 4 to 5 meters (12 to 15 feet) thick.
OTC - October 20, 2014, 1:37 pm
Show me where i said CO2 isn't CO2 crank
crankyhead - October 12, 2014, 1:37 pm
Seeing as how ice forms on the surface of water, and not underneath it, and that volume is measured in three dimensions, whereas surface area is not, without accurately measuring the physical depth of the ice, what can we conclude about the data set?
crankyhead - October 12, 2014, 1:32 pm
No, actually, Emma put up a link that said the opposite of what SHE said it did. The rest of the conversation was just her trying to deflect the fact that she did it.
crankyhead - October 12, 2014, 1:30 pm
What are you referring to as false cause OTC? You're the guy promoting the 'CO2 isn't CO2' magical beans theory.
OTC - October 11, 2014, 1:16 pm
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
OTC - October 11, 2014, 1:09 pm
So ER put up a link that said the opposite of what you said before you said it, impressive
Curlyrocks - October 10, 2014, 9:27 pm
Last I checked the maximum decline of the ice in summer was getting better and better. Still won't tell you how thick the ice is though.
Curlyrocks - October 10, 2014, 9:24 pm
I meant to say "various sources of CO2 but ran out of room and figured it could go 1st. We only got 255 letters to make our comments so they can't be too long and sometimes important words get lost. It reminds me of back in the day when I was a kid and...
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:43 pm
Speaking of sea ice, care to take a guess what the data from NASA says about that?
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:38 pm
So, you're just going to ignore it then, I see. Good for you Emma.
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:36 pm
and we all know that sea ice comes from warming temperatures, right?
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:36 pm
and you could go to the arctic sea ice news and a***ysis site and see that this year set a record in the amount of sea ice
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:33 pm
then again, you could go to this link: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/ and see that they admit there's a pause
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:32 pm
Are you planning on addressing the temperature data I pulled from NASA, or are you going to be predictable and just pretend it doesn't exist?
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:31 pm
Which is it Emma? Does the data from NASA agree with your claim, or does it disagree with your claim? I'm not sure you understand the optics of pretending it does one and then the other. Just saying.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:28 pm
How about looking at the first few graphs in that pdf ant realizing that they contradict your claim too?
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:27 pm
See the problem with NASA data yet?
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:26 pm
How about using the chart with just the title alone in this pdf: http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/press_releases/lectures/Loeb_LaRC_Colloq.pdf
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:24 pm
You put up ONE link. I looked at it. I didn't say what you thought it said. I went and got a link from the same place that said the opposite of what you said. Can you see the problem with your logic yet?
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:23 pm
funny you should ignore the two pieces of information I put up, then whine about ignoring yours.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:22 pm
Curious to note that you still don't want to talk about the temperature data that I found over at the NASA website. Care to explain why not?
Dwydwyyr - October 10, 2014, 2:20 pm
So no evidence then. Whut? There's no logic there, just (unsupported) belief since it is generally accepted that NASA stands behind the theory of man-made climate change. You cherry-picked post-hoc data. For a "flattened mouse" you are a big jacka$s. CWYL
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:13 pm
Let me guess… you're just going to ignore the proof from NASA I provided that actually shows the temperature, right? And then prance around claiming victory, all the while ignoring the glaring lacuna in your own logic?
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:11 pm
An intelligent person did figure it out, and that intelligent person is now trying to show you that the proof you provided doesn't support the claim you're making. *ahem*
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:10 pm
No, it doesn't, but if you look at the statement based on NASA data and the chart from NASA, an intelligent person could figure it out. Not that I'm accusing you of that.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:05 pm
Here's the NASA proof that directly contradicts your 'uninformed opinion':http://climate.nasa.gov/system/downloadable_items/45_23_g-globalTemp-annual-l.jpg
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:03 pm
No, NASA is not in your b***. But your facts came from there. Your graph doesn't show a temperature correlation. When the 'fact' you're stating, isn't supported by the 'proof' you provide, one has to question your 'ability to understand the issue'.
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 1:58 pm
so I guess you are saying NASA is in my b***?
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 1:57 pm
CO2 Levels in a chart from NASA can be found at http://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/24_g-co2-l.jpg
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 1:55 pm
Citing the latest data from NOAA and NASA, Dr. David Whitehouse, an astrophysicist and academic advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said that the 2013 global surface-temperature records from both entities show the “pause” in warming continues
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 1:08 pm
OK, OTC. In that case, seeing as how we're both alive right now, why don't you explain it to me. Seeing as how it's your theory and poor, simple me is having difficulty understanding it.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 1:07 pm
I don't know where you pull your 'facts' from Emma, but in the future, do us all a favour, and try somewhere other than "from your b***". Because those are definitely not the facts.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 1:05 pm
So yeah, 5L's for getting Emma to admit she doesn't have a basic comprehension of grade 10 chemistry either. No offence.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 1:04 pm
Curly, don't take this the wrong way, but there is no such thing as 'various CO2' Whether it comes out of a coal plant, a conservative, a cow or a car, CO2 looks and acts the same. Like this: O=C=O.
OTC - October 8, 2014, 10:37 pm
No they wouldn't be able to tell you because you weren't alive back then.
Dwydwyyr - October 8, 2014, 10:06 pm
Thank you "Emma" for helping me get elected. Could not have done it without you, skippy. Toasting you here in S****horpe as I type. TTFN
EmmaRoydes - October 8, 2014, 9:50 pm
EmmaRoydes - October 8, 2014, 9:49 pm
why don't you grow a set and actually login instead of just using the posting routine to put your comments up? Afraid to be exposed for someone who was banned?
EmmaRoydes - October 8, 2014, 9:47 pm
and that, cranky, is where everything goes haywire. The amount of CO2 in the last 20 years has been increasing, but the temperature hasn't been rising. Strange how facts work, eh?
EmmaRoydes - October 8, 2014, 9:45 pm
nice one curly! 5Ls for the comment!
Curlyrocks - October 8, 2014, 6:20 pm
I can't speak for the biospheres reaction to various CO2, but I can tell you that the scientists of that time didn't react to CO2 by panicking, blaming the rich, killing their industry. Good thing too or the Industrial revolution never would have happened
crankyhead - October 8, 2014, 3:48 pm
Hey OTC, do you think the scientists in 1492 would have been able to tell me how the biosphere knows enough to react to naturally occurring CO2, but not react to man made CO2? I mean, that really is a fascinating phenomenon, isn't it?
EmmaRoydes - October 7, 2014, 9:58 am
Especially if you discount the importance of Nicolaus Copernicus and Georg von Peuerbach.
OTC - October 7, 2014, 9:00 am
Now ER, we've determined that the term 'scientists' didn't exist in 1492 so logically neither did people who studied science
EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:25 pm
oh, and the gutenberg press in 1450
EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:24 pm
scientists were really scarce.
EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:24 pm
the anemometer was invented in 1450, the Nürnberg Terrestrial Globe created during the years 1490-1492, England's first printing press in 1476, Da Vinci 1452-1519, did drawings of helicopter, parachute, submarine, centrifigal pump. Yeah, inventors and
EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:18 pm
Must have been the switchover to the Gregorian calendar in 1582
EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:16 pm
It also gets one threatened with physical violence
OTC - October 5, 2014, 9:22 am
I see, you "know" my I.Q. and how I am, and that's based on what, postings on the internet? Did you do any testing to get real data? Or do you just believe it because you don't like what I say? pseudoscience indeed
OTC - October 5, 2014, 9:11 am
Curly, it also gets you called a lot of names.
OTC - October 5, 2014, 12:14 am
TA says there were no scientists before 1600 and you say there were scientists in 1492, hmmm
OTC - October 5, 2014, 12:08 am
And you think I'm stupid? bwahahahaha
Curlyrocks - October 4, 2014, 11:31 pm
Exactly. 90% of those in the "scientific consensus" are just followers saying what they've been told or what will make them popular. Saying the earth is round used to get you burned at the stake but now saing GW isn't man made gets your funding stripped.
Curlyrocks - October 4, 2014, 11:31 pm
Exactly. 90% of those in the "scientific consensus" are just followers saying what they've been told or what will make them popular. Saying the earth is round used to get you burned at the stake but now saing GW isn't man made gets your funding stripped.
OTC - October 4, 2014, 6:23 pm
You mean the 'term' scientists didn't exist, doesn't mean science didn't exist, or maybe you are saying science didn't exist before 1600?
OTC - October 4, 2014, 6:19 pm
So science proved the earth was round yet the consensus in 1492 was that the earth was flat. Kinda like science proves the earth naturally heats up and cools down but the consensus is this cycle is man made
OTC - October 4, 2014, 6:15 pm
Must be that man made global warming thing. Oh wait! its Bush's fault, right?
OTC - October 4, 2014, 9:38 am
So I'm wrong about comment #71388? Please enlighten me Z
Zeitguy - October 3, 2014, 11:45 pm
OTC you are : "Other Than Correct".
Zeitguy - October 3, 2014, 11:42 pm
Curly you rock.
OTC - October 2, 2014, 5:33 pm
Scientific conscensious?
Curlyrocks - October 2, 2014, 11:07 am
The tropic of cancer, determined with shadows on the summer solstice that the distance between them would be 1/50th of 360 and paid a guy to count his steps as he walked from one to the other.
Curlyrocks - October 2, 2014, 11:04 am
Eratosthenes of Cyrene 276BC- 195BC was the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth and calculate the tilt of the earth's axis. He did all of it by measuring the angle of the sun in 2 different citys in Egypt the southern of which was on
OTC - October 2, 2014, 8:33 am
3000 years? I thought Columbus sailed west in 1492 defying the flat earth concensus?
Zeitguy - October 2, 2014, 12:50 am
OTC you're better than that!
Zeitguy - October 2, 2014, 12:49 am
Such a ridiculous premise. A blatant attempt to discredit scientific conscensious with ideological rhetoric. Meh.
terroraustralis - October 1, 2014, 2:45 pm
3000 years is actually a pretty long time... and "Scientists" didnt exist until the 1600's when the scientific method was first created, as a result of the controversy over galileo's imprisonment by the catholic church, because the evidence backed galileo

Must be a lie -

West Antarctic Ice Melting -

TAGS: manmade global warming is bs
Rating: 4.5/5

More politifakes by EmmaRoydes

EmmaRoydes - June 10, 2014, 3:46 pm
after subglacial volcanoes and - I meant to put and geothermal h**spots
foxrecon19d - June 10, 2014, 1:38 pm
Subglacial volcanes which were no doubt put there by ice sheet hating Republicans under George Bush!

Liberal Beliefs -

Liberal Beliefs -

TAGS: liberal man made global warming hype
Rating: 4.14/5

More politifakes by OTC

ChadAllen - January 28, 2014, 10:26 am
Good one!

liberal convictions -

Waffle Science -

Its strange -

TAGS: man made global warming
Rating: 4.04/5

More politifakes by OTC

mittromney - July 30, 2015, 7:12 pm
/there's zero evidence for God and no reputable scientist believes there's scientific proof for a god. If there was ever a hoax,it was belief in God.This is why you have zero credibility when it comes to debates on science.Obvious fundy agenda is obvious/
mittromney - July 30, 2015, 7:07 pm
/It's strange how people don't believe in god because there is a total lack of evidence that there is a God but they believe in man-made global warming when there is a ton more evidence for it, and nearly every scientist on the planet believes in it?/

Liberal logic -

Humans -

THE NEXT UNDERWEAR BOMBERS - With Janet Napolitano, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in charge, I'll bet these guys make it through TSA security by Easter.

HE WHO LAUGHS LAST - Should remember who made him laugh


THINK IT OVER - Then Bust The Unions

TAGS: made in usa
Rating: 1.4/5

More politifakes by ughomer

simplegenius - October 25, 2012, 5:38 pm
while i see your point, Unions claim to help the workers when some blatantly do not. that is why I do not like unions. but you are correct you can profit off of anything people will let you even if it might be considered a scam.
crankyhead - October 25, 2012, 4:44 pm
You can't be anti-union and pro-capitalism at the same time. If some men have a right to capitalize on the sale of goods and resources for their own profit, then other men have the right to capitalize on their labour for their own profit.
simplegenius - October 25, 2012, 4:37 pm
unions built a lot of things we use today, so does India, Pakistan and other countries. It doesn't mean I like or support it, just means I have to deal with it, while the unions exploit and take money from the hard working people who did build/make things
mntmn3 - October 24, 2012, 7:34 pm
U(nions) didn't build that!
arnnatz - October 24, 2012, 7:09 pm
Didn't china build most of the counterfeit parts that are in some of the US Navy ships?
crankyhead - October 24, 2012, 5:23 pm
Ohhh.... all the hypocrights are suddenly pro-union. How convenient that you guys are trying to elect a flip flopper to represent your cognitively dissonant political positions.
GrouchoMarxist - October 24, 2012, 7:55 am
Or trying to kill the Coal Unions
vbattaile - October 24, 2012, 6:46 am
vbattaile - October 24, 2012, 6:45 am
Unions also built the Middle Class.... but they were the good old days. The Unions of yesterday.... not the parasitic leeches of today
JGalt - October 24, 2012, 6:35 am
Or Obama's union busting, shipping GM jobs to china. China will build the next aircraft carriers with Obama at the helm, if any are built at all!
JGalt - October 24, 2012, 6:34 am
Or Obama's union busting, shipping GM jobs to china. China will build the next aircraft carriers with Obama at the helm, if any are built at all!

liberal science -

man isn't causing global warming -

control and regulation -

According to liberals -

TAGS: man made climate negates science in nature
Rating: 4.67/5

More politifakes by OTC

OTC - April 8, 2015, 12:46 pm
Haven't you been paying attention? I have brought up other scientific events that effect the climate and have been lambasted for doing so because it goes against the 97% consensus of CO2, but I suppose attacking character is a real discussion in your eye?
DebtToAmerica - April 8, 2015, 4:51 am
no, just according to you. or more specifically, the delicate strawman you've created so you can post deliberate misinformation to avoid having a real discussion.

Al Gore's hot air -

TAGS: al gore man made global warming hoax
Rating: 4.58/5

More politifakes by OTC

OTC - March 4, 2015, 2:14 am
Excuse me while I go roll on the floor laughing
OTC - March 4, 2015, 2:12 am
Skeptical Science? A left wing bias "blog" founded by a cartoonist, not a clinate scientist, who has been caught making stuff up, and where actual scientists get ridiculed for trying to debate their data, is your source??
DebtToAmerica - March 3, 2015, 11:52 pm
claiming that the CO2 isnt from manmade sources is like claiming that 9/11 had nothing to do with why the US was searching for bin laden.
DebtToAmerica - March 3, 2015, 11:48 pm
that is how we know the CO2 came from manmade sources, its as clear as the connection between turning on a light switch, and the lightbulb turning on.
DebtToAmerica - March 3, 2015, 11:46 pm
for the ten thousand years before the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere never rose above 260PPM. after ten thousand years of very little change, it sh** up to over 380PPM. in only a few hundred years.
DebtToAmerica - March 3, 2015, 11:42 pm
because right around the time we started burning coal to drive steam engines, the atmosphere's CO2 content began rapidly rising, after being extremely stable for the previous ten thousand years. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_10000_years.gif
OTC - March 3, 2015, 5:11 pm
That is what we were talking about, right? My belief in natural climate change is "political" because you as.sume I get my info from political blogs
OTC - March 3, 2015, 5:06 pm
Or maybe your linking to a news article is acceptable as long as no one else does it, otherwise, if they do they have political junk science beliefs?
OTC - March 3, 2015, 5:03 pm
So I guess the guardian is one of those scientific organizations you keep referring to?
OTC - March 3, 2015, 5:00 pm
No we weren't speaking about the guardian, we were speaking about ALarmist Gore claiming the ice caps would be melted by now which they aren't, and you said he was right and linked to the guardian while claiming I have political beliefs about GW.
fauxnews - March 3, 2015, 1:20 pm
We were not speaking about "the guardian",were we?lol But in that comment many days ago,I was trying to link to a graph from the http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/ Didnt realize I hyperlinked to "The Guardian" instead.My error.Yes,Guardian is left leaning
fauxnews - March 3, 2015, 1:14 pm
OTC - March 3, 2015, 1:07 pm
"theguardian"? Strange how you chastise me and as.sume a political view, but you can link to a liberal newspaper as proof
fauxnews - February 23, 2015, 2:22 pm
hulksmash - February 23, 2015, 10:24 am
-note the a**umption by the mod "when" not if. only a matter of time. Pass the message along to your attack dogs. you can text those clowns on their obaaamaphones.
hulksmash - February 23, 2015, 10:15 am
Hmm, the mod has this to say about cha when I reported you,"The rules are clear,I ban members who break them.WHEN Faux breaks a rule he WILL be banned." You screwed up so badly around here lately you're not even a warning away from being banned
fauxnews - February 22, 2015, 1:16 am
Cool. Always a fan, even though I'm under contract for DC.
calron - February 22, 2015, 1:15 am
Greenist. http://fast1.onesite.com/capcom-unity.com/user/stormmagician/07b30ed65a8c771a1c97f4fc9b7dcf00.jpg?v=130676
fauxnews - February 22, 2015, 12:53 am
So, you two kids done now?
fauxnews - February 22, 2015, 12:46 am
Sir....uh....we don't serve GIANT men without shoes? or in ripped up jeans. The sign says, "No shoes. No shirt. No service." That goes for gamma irradiated mutants as well.
calron - February 22, 2015, 12:43 am
What, no chocolate! HULK SMASH PIE MAN!
fauxnews - February 22, 2015, 12:43 am
Okay, *writing down the order* I have...*writing* one order of cool-aid. Did you want that in carafe? Also, your patron "Calron"(lol) won't be having his pie. Is that on your tab as well? Or do you need a to go box sir?
fauxnews - February 22, 2015, 12:39 am
Nah, I just work here. We can't allow patrons to bring in, uh, their own food? heh heh But, uh, thank you! X-D. Just pay the cashier on the way out. Here's your ticket. Have a nice night. =)
calron - February 22, 2015, 12:36 am
No, Prof X, coconut sucks. Try chocolate cream.
OTC - February 22, 2015, 12:33 am
Worked up? you're the one refuting with attacks. i see many variables to climate change, you only see one: humans. and you think I'm in blind denial? you may need help for that cool-aid addiction
fauxnews - February 22, 2015, 12:26 am
Shush. Calm down,Ron. Here, try some coconut cream. It's good, try some.
calron - February 22, 2015, 12:24 am
And wrong. Thus the word pretend.
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 11:33 pm
No, it's just obvious. ;-)
calron - February 21, 2015, 11:21 pm
So you pretend to know what I'm feeling as well.
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 2:15 pm
I dunno OTC, looks to me like the only people getting worked up are people like you and "Calron"(lol)… ;-)
fauxnews - February 21, 2015, 2:03 pm
Translation(OTC): Im projecting,and a little angry. You can tell when I start telling others to "pee in the ocean"[#73010] Well,what about this clever refute against my "friends"? Got nothing. :-( Well, when in doubt, time to make stuff up. :-D
OTC - February 21, 2015, 12:21 pm
Calron, when faux resorts to personal attacks, that means you've pushed his b***ons and he has nothing else.
calron - February 16, 2015, 12:50 am
So these are the comment to lead me to? A series of personal attacks based off of because I said so instead actual evidence or reason.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 4:25 pm
Please refer to posts #72898,#72899 for now on if you can’t let this go.Same goes for your ”friends." To quote a wise old man on Seinfeld,"Life's too short to waste ON YOU." *chortle* Cheers =)
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 4:19 pm
Your views/arguments about man-made climate change are outside the rules of traditionally,generally accepted methods of science.Your conspiracy theory nonsense is junk science,disproved by real science.Anyone arguing with you is wasting their time,period.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 4:19 pm
*sigh*They call it"cognitive dissonance" for a reason.The problem isnt Gore,the libs or science.The problem is your pathological stubbornness,emphasis on the word"pathological.” You only offer the same old,tired,ignorant,long-since-been-debunked arguments
OTC - February 15, 2015, 3:02 pm
Oh right, hangover. Another scientific experiment I suppose?
OTC - February 15, 2015, 3:00 pm
"symptom of GW"? See how you change your stance? GW is not the same as MMGW.
OTC - February 15, 2015, 2:56 pm
The last time CO2 levels were this high modern man didn't exist, so what caused that increase in CO2?
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:53 pm
OTC, they call it "cognitive dissonance" for a reason.The problem isn't Gore or the liberals or the scientists.The problem is your pathological stubbornness,emphasis on the word "pathological." Okay,enough for one day.Time to nurse my hangover :-( Cheers
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:50 pm
I've never seen an atom before with my n'aked eye, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Yet, atomic theory is still a theory and, sure, there is a very tiny chance it could be wrong. But if we've going that route, why argue this at all?
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:49 pm
Oh, I dunno... those millions of cars and factories pumping CO2 into the the atmosphere. Let's see...satellites, carbon trackers, experts monitoring factories, etc. Do I need to go on? lol... It's not magic.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:46 pm
We can't see viruses with the n**** eye. That doesn't mean people are not catching the flu because of them. Yes, we've had some crazy winters. That doesn't mean the world isn't heating up worse and worse every year overall. Wild weather is a symptom of GW
OTC - February 15, 2015, 2:45 pm
If CO2 is CO2 no matter the source, then how do they know how much of it is from man?
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:45 pm
*n'aked eye
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:44 pm
...what, exactly, is your point here? lol.. Oh, look! I can't see CO2 with the n**** eye! Climate change is a hoax...IN YOUR FACE SCIENCE! Oh, it's snowing outside! HA! IN YOUR FACE SCIENCE?lol.Observational data is misleading because the eyes can deceive
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:43 pm
But unless you have evidence otherwise, the data clearly shows that every year is getting h**ter than the one before it and the ice caps continue to melt.And the man-made climate change theory has yet to be disproven by the scientific method, so....
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:40 pm
So if a cancer patient lives,say, seven years instead of five I doubt he will be like,"IN YOUR FACE,SCIENCE!"which is the laughably ignorant logic you're essentially using.The scientists are giving a basic idea: they may be off a few years or even early
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:38 pm
Look, OTC, the logic you are using could be used by cancer patients who are told they have five years to live. Sure...many of those patients wind up living sometimes as many as 10 even 20 years, but the prediction is still the same...they are dying.
fauxnews - February 15, 2015, 2:37 pm
And Gore was right... http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/01/new-satellite-maps-show-polar-ice-caps-melting-at-unprecedented-rate
OTC - February 15, 2015, 2:19 pm
You're right about climate change, but ALarmist Gore was preaching "man-made" global warming would melt the ice caps, not climate change.
DebtToAmerica - January 27, 2015, 7:53 am
climate change increases weather volatility, it means colder winters, h**ter summers and more violent storms. that is the answer to the question you were asking, nobody else bothered to say it because they all think you'll ignore it. prove them wrong.
fauxnews - January 20, 2015, 12:10 am
I thought the answer was: "Because the author of this poster is one of many low-information Teabag Party voters who thought the 'Polar Vortex' was a movie made by the same guys who brought you 'Sharknado' and 'Megashark vs.Giant Octopus'" X-D
crankyhead - January 18, 2015, 6:17 pm
Is the answer: "Because climate change deniers are hoarding all of the h** air?" =)
OTC - January 14, 2015, 12:48 pm
Maybe so, but that didn't really answer the question
Zeitguy - January 10, 2015, 9:55 pm
2014, the h**test year in recorded history.

if man can change the climate through regulations -

20 year cooling trend -


scanners -

TAGS: man made climate change unequivocal 97
Rating: 4.35/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:25 am
Hey, mate. I like this debate :-) Nice to have a civil exchange for a change. But gotta get to sleep. Long day ahead of me tomorrow. Will look for your comments and respond when I get the chance. Thanx for the debate! Have a good night, mate. Cheers.
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:23 am
P.P.S. On #76558 you made an outlandish claim. Incredible claims require incredible evidence (UFOs, Bigfoot, CC denial). So, again, where is YOUR facts and proof? with a citation please. Or is your silence a concession that you don't have any?
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:20 am
You haven't found some loop hole or flaw in science. You just don't understand, or don't want to accept, the difference between empiricism and ideology.
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:19 am
Again, science is not about absolutes. It is reasonable to believe in some theories based on the scope of the investigations and findings (MMCC, a round earth, evolution) it is not reasonable to believe in others lacking evidence (Bigfoot, God, etc.)
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:17 am
#76597. You are taking me out of context, mate. It is easy to do with this archaic comment board.
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:17 am
...science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Religion is a particular superstitious system of faith and worship
RKEastland - May 30, 2015, 2:16 am
The point that you say it is a fact that the theory is true. Facts either disprove or prove theories. Once proven or disproven they are no longer theories. To sill claim it is a theory means that is is not proven.
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:16 am
...but science has a lot more going for it than religion and despite what the deniers think, science is NOT an ideology or religion for atheists...
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:14 am
#76589 P.S. You certainly shouldn't live your life based on faith from a dusty old fairy tale book like the Bible. If you have to have faith in something, better from research and findings of fact that can illuminate the unknown. They are no guarantees...
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:09 am
#76591 It is a statement of fact to say that the scientific community supports MMCC theory. Not sure what your philosophical problem is with that mate.
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:08 am
Given the data and mountain of independent findings/evidence, the probability is so high that MMCC is true that it is reasonable to infer it is true. (2/2)
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:06 am
#76589 Never said that. It is the facts and the findings of FACT that debunk or support a theory. However, for practical purposes, logic dictates, it is reasonable to infer something is true or false after an exhaustive investigation has concluded.(1/2)
RKEastland - May 30, 2015, 2:06 am
So it is a fact and not a theory?
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:05 am
Until then, it is a statement of fact to say "the findings of science says MMCC" is unequivocal. WE are just telling you what the science says. You can either deny it or accept.(2/2)
RKEastland - May 30, 2015, 2:03 am
Why then do we need to treat theories as facts?
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 2:03 am
Unless you are alleging a hoax or a conspiracy, there are too many independent studies and scientists to discount on MMCC. The scientific community is practically unanimous in its support of MMCC. They closed the scientific debate, for now.(1/2)
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:59 am
#76586 Who said it couldn't? Hence the word "theory." But just because it 'could' be wrong, doesn't mean it's unreasonable to infer it is true. It would like saying, if it can't be 100% accurate, then why believe in it? Rubbish.
RKEastland - May 30, 2015, 1:56 am
Then why couldn't the data be wrong about MMGW?
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:56 am
Nope. The propaganda you spouted in #76558 is what makes you a denier. Wanna guess where that misinformation came from? Here's a hint, it wasn't from reputable scientists. ;-) And you still didn't provide your proof for that. A mulligan?
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:55 am
#76582 Of course. And, again, it wasn't the science was wrong. It's tools were just USED wrong and created bad data. In the end, it was the science that was ultimately right which exonerated the wrong culprit. :-)
RKEastland - May 30, 2015, 1:54 am
So by accepting that science isn't always right, I am considered a denier?
RKEastland - May 30, 2015, 1:52 am
Sometimes science can also point to the wrong culprit, they could have the same blood type, or hair color that can lead someone looking at the limited evidence to come to the wrong conclusion.
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:52 am
You are spazzing out. Anyways, to finish my point on #76565, science doesn't claim to be infallible. That is what religion is for, denier.
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:51 am
Sure, countless examples... And statistically speaking, those countless examples account for about 2% of the cases whereby you can count on the doctors being right about 97% of the time. The exception to the rule is called that for a reason.
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:49 am
Science is about findings of fact. eg. In forensics, if a person is wrongly convicted, it is the science that eventually shows him to be innocent. In the end the science was right, it was just "wrongly used" in the beginning (2/2)
RKEastland - May 30, 2015, 1:49 am
There are countless examples of people being told by nearly all doctors they see that they will die within 3 years, and they go on to live for decades after. the reason? the 2% or so that said they weren't and they followed the 2% that gave them a chance.
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:47 am
#76575 It's an obtusely antiquated example that no intelligent scientific person would use to indict science. It doesn't show that "science gets things wrong." Science isn't about right or wrong. It's about empiricism and empirical findings (1/2)
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:45 am
*expect* = accept
RKEastland - May 30, 2015, 1:45 am
"idiotic example"? how is showing that even science can get stuff wrong be idiotic? The modern science you esteem so highly of, was based off of the science of the 1780's and before.
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:45 am
If something has a high probability, say that 97 doctors out of a hundred give you 3 years to live, trust me when I say you will listen to them. You won't care what the other three say. With a high probability, even if not 100% accurate...
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:43 am
(C) Who says "science is 100% accurate"? Certainly not the scientist. Again, hence the word theory. The classic denier argument: well, if it only a theory, then what's the point of believing in it with certainty? Well, you can thank probabilities for that
RKEastland - May 30, 2015, 1:42 am
Except wen it comes to their own deductions
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:42 am
*change* = chance
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:41 am
It means science is working. Sure, there is a remote change that MMCC theory could be disproven. But at the moment, it has not. Until then, for practical purposes, science supports it as true. You can either except it or deny it.
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:39 am
(B) Phlogiston remained the dominant theory until the 1780s. So it's an idiotic example. Let's stay in the realm of modern science. Even then, science disproving theories is what science is for. We don't need deniers. Science is the art of skepticism
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:37 am
*world* = word
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:37 am
(A) No one said it is. Hence the world theory. But, for practical purposes, it is reasonable to infer that MMCC is unequivocal given the exhaustive investigation conducted and concluded.
RKEastland - May 30, 2015, 1:34 am
Science is never 100% accurate on all it's findings. people who think that science is infallible will only lead themselves up to get hurt at some point.
RKEastland - May 30, 2015, 1:32 am
Science isn't always unequivocal. Ever heard of the Phlogiston theory? Science said for years that fire burned because of this mysterious element. It wasn't till someone actually really studied it that they found that they were wrong.
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:09 am
That said, "you do realize" you are denying science in favor of an already debunked classic denier argument that holds no water. WE are just telling you what the science says. But, yes, you are free to deny it. P.S. Welcome to the site, denier. Cheers :-)
fauxnews - May 30, 2015, 1:07 am
Proof? Though a combination of oversimplification and fallacy, you are basing your argument (intentional or otherwise) a false equivalency logical fallacy. There are tens of thousands of vetted independent studies that show MMCC is unequivocal.
RKEastland - May 30, 2015, 12:44 am
You do realize that out of those 97%, less than 2% have actually done a study on the issue. the other 95% simply agree without checking to see if the data is correct. The same thing happened with the stem cell research and it turned out they were wrong.

money-made climate change -

global warming on Mars -

liberals are so dumb -

TAGS: man made climate change
Rating: 4.25/5

More politifakes by OTC

calron - March 28, 2015, 3:04 pm
I've been accused of hating liberals just for disagreeing with them. I can think someone is wrong without seething rage being behind it.

fairy tales -

TAGS: man made climate change fairy tale beliefs
Rating: 4.14/5

More politifakes by OTC

fauxnews - May 13, 2015, 11:52 pm
and might make you feel like you're sticking it to "the man". But it's a Quixotic crusade to slay a make-believe dragon. Science isn't budging on this, no matter how many right-wing nutter sites you google.Enjoy your crusade while it lasts,Don.Cheers(2/2)
fauxnews - May 13, 2015, 11:46 pm
lol...Oh, the Chinese scientists.haha..That changes EVERYTHING! Mate...I have a feeling that the tiny debate on this comment board isn't going to re-open the scientific debate on MMCC or change any minds.Venting about it here might make you feel good(1/2)
OTC - May 13, 2015, 10:59 pm
You realize you're talking about the Chinese scientists who made that report, right?
rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 9:51 pm
More ignorant, fallacious denier nonsense. Are you finished, hun?
OTC - May 13, 2015, 9:33 pm
Funny how you can see absurdity, except when its your own, like your absurd belief in the 97% consensus that temps are the highest in 1300 when that's been debunked
rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 6:57 pm
That wasn't the point of your poster. You only succeeded in lampooning 'your' OWN absurdity. That's the Pee-Wee Herman excuse - Fall off your bike, doing a trick, "I meant to do that!" But thank you for at least having the dignity of NOT "denying" 'it' :)
OTC - May 13, 2015, 6:47 pm
Funny how you can recognize absurdity, except when it's your own.
Zeitguy - May 13, 2015, 4:48 pm
Wow! Boom goes the dynamite.
rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 10:46 am
You're welcome :)
rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 10:46 am
You do not acknowledge the difference between matters of empiricism (ie.science) and fairy tales (ie.Jesus and the Toothfairy).You then try to "argue" that only a fairy tale could result from hard science. Hence, Reductio ad absurdum.
rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 10:40 am
It's reasonable to infer that something is true or false after an extensive empirical investigation has concluded (ie the scientific consensus on MMCC). It's unreasonable to believe in the irrational in the absence of proof (eg.Jesus and the Tooth fairy)
rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 10:33 am
the tooth fairy. You compare faith in something rational like empiricism (eg. like trusting in the fact that it's not plausible that 97% of scientists could ALL be wrong) to faith in the irrational (eg.belief of Jesus's existence or the Easter Bunny).
rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 10:31 am
Your poster basically says, "Libs only believe in MMCC because it's popular to do so, because there is a consensus." You discount that faith in something rational like empiricism is not the same thing as blind faith in something irrational like Jesus or
rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 10:28 am
Committing the error of Reductio ad adsurdum isn't the same thing as "reversing the argument" or parodying it. Your tooth fairy poster is guilty of fallacy. It's not lampooning it. It isn't mocking the vilification of deniers by liberals, as you claim hun
rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 10:24 am
This poster's a better example of Reductio ad adsurdum - www.politifake.org/man-not-nature-controls-climate-man-control-change-politics-62847.html You imply CC cant be man-made by arguing the absurd result that no modern industry existed during the iceage
rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 10:19 am
That's a negative, Ghostrider. Reductio ad absurdum is when you try to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial. Like what you do with your posters, ironically.
OTC - May 13, 2015, 10:08 am
Its called Reductio ad absurdum, I'm reversing the liberal argument that if one doesn't believe in MMCC then they must hate or don't believe in science and then they're made fun of.
rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 2:09 am
5Ls on your comment, DTA. :) Don't worry doll, I noticed the "Tooth Fairy" also left behind this karmic goodie. www.politifake.org/fairy-tales-wei-hock-soon-science-deniers-funding-politics-62846.html LOL
DebtToAmerica - May 13, 2015, 1:42 am
the OTC guide to insightful debate and changing people's minds: 1) make fun of them 2) ??? 3) PROFIT!!!

liberal stupidity -

scientific consensus -

TAGS: man made climate change consensus
Rating: 4.09/5

More politifakes by OTC

calron - April 4, 2015, 1:01 pm
Ignoring the actual underlying facts given in favor of excuses not to even listen to the argument, let alone attempt to show it is flawed. Ad Hominem indeed.
OTC - April 3, 2015, 5:08 pm
one condition to the cause of the original problem, and its usually not what I was told. Anyways, enjoy ur day mate. cheers
OTC - April 3, 2015, 5:05 pm
As a tech for several years, whenever I was called to a machine I never accepted what I was told about the problem because 99% of the time they were wrong. I guess it's my nature to question, doesn't mean I'm always right, just that there's more than
fauxnews - April 3, 2015, 4:51 pm
Fair enough. I can acknowledge that, mate. Good point....Ok, got my mountain BIKE ;-) Almost forgot it. Another beautiful sunny day! On my way back to the lab. Have a good one, OTC! Cheers =)
OTC - April 3, 2015, 2:27 pm
Faux, there numerous articles about the climate models being wrong, many by scientists, as well as many scientific studies about other events that effect climate change.
fauxnews - April 3, 2015, 12:28 pm
In any case, have a good weekend, mate. I'm back to work. nice debating with you. See you around maybe next week. :-) Cheers! =)
fauxnews - April 3, 2015, 12:26 pm
...but the consensus of scientific FACTS and finding - not opinions - is that manmade climate change is unequivocally true. Public opinion doesn't say it is true or false (it says it's undecided) but science says it IS true. Hence the difference.
fauxnews - April 3, 2015, 12:19 pm
Mate.....as Rebecca pointed out, the WSJ link you posted points to someone's opinion, nothing more. The WSJ thing you shared is proof that a POLITICAL DEBATE rages on. Yeah, public OPINION is divided on this. Stop confusing politics with science...
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 8:48 am
Normally I add lotsa sugar to this coffee I'm holding, but today I'm making an exception. PWNing you this morning has been sweet enough :)
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 8:40 am
So another #biasfail FTW. Let's see,ShoOTCer - two #biasfails + one OPINION piece you sneakily tried to pass off as proof against the generally acknowledged scientific consensus VS. 10000+peer-reviewed FACT-FOUND-BASED studies(read:non-opinion) OTC FTL :(
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 8:33 am
The Telegraph piece doesn't say what you want it to say.It comments on uncertainty, though in a sloppy way - commits slippery slope fallacy.Why? Because the Telegraph doesnt pretend to be a true news source.It's a right wing outlet known for its influence
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 8:27 am
The Daily Caller is well known as a politically conservative news and opinion tabloid website. Not that was necessary, hun. The ad hominem picture of Al Gore was a dead-giveway :) #Biasfail FTW
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 8:24 am
Sure. "Wall Street Journal" is professional. Problem is that this was not an article. It was an OPINION piece, as stated in the upper left hand corner - and that nice disclaimer warning about its veracity. PWNed
OTC - April 3, 2015, 8:01 am
or this professional site interestingly referring to the consensus that the "science is settle", which is often repeated here- http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266
OTC - April 3, 2015, 7:47 am
or this one that cites other factors to changes in climate - http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/
OTC - April 3, 2015, 7:40 am
you forgot this link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html and all the others that dispute the climate models based on continue research
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 7:00 am
In the event anyone would like to contact this 'reputable' major science organization -er- I meant, minor denier fanpage,here's C3headline's OFFICIAL 'professional' email address: C3headlines@gmail.com Now,excuse ME while I "roll on the floor" LAUGHING :)
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 6:54 am
The blog confesses to being a biased "climate conservative consumer". The funniest part? C3Headline claims to have an actual Publisher/Editor but lists as the site's "official" company email address a gmail account - http://postimg.org/image/sj8wrlt3t/
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 6:53 am
The site confesses to be a biased "climate conservative consumer".The funniest part? C3Headline claims to have an actual Publisher/Editor but lists as the site's "official" company email address a gmail account - http://postimg.org/image/sj8wrlt3t/
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 6:35 am
I noticed you forgot to provide the link to this fabulous article - I'm sorry - I meant OPINION blog http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/02/2014-nasa-hansen-climate-model-output-vs-climate-reality-failure-its-still-ugly.html
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 6:33 am
That website, c3headlines, deliberately misrepresenting facts in its OPINION PIECE on both Hansen and climate models(both of which have been vetted as accurate in peer review) have a lot of fundamentalist anti-science deniers choking on their Jesus juice
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 6:25 am
I thought you were going to finish this,ShoOTCer? Don't worry. I got this... This opinion about Hansen, a cut and pasted quote, from a cheaply maintained rightwing blogger site anti-science site called c3headlines http://www.c3headlines.com/
OTC - April 2, 2015, 9:25 pm
Let me finish this for you, James Hansen testimony to the Senate was "stage crafted" for maximum fear. That coupled with climate models (that have been proven wrong) have a lot of people in line to drink the kool-aid of global warming.
rebeccaolsen - March 30, 2015, 10:33 am
It's actually an incomplete sentence. Let me finish it for you,"SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.Not a scientific conclusion.But a consensus of scientific conclusions that(even independent of each other)AGREE man-made climate change is unequivocal." You're welcome :)
OTC - March 30, 2015, 9:45 am
It's a statement, not an argument.
Zeitguy - March 27, 2015, 7:59 am
You just lost the argument.

If man-made CO2 since the industrial revolution is heating the planet -

TAGS: man made climate change
Rating: 4.04/5

More politifakes by OTC

RonaldReagan - April 4, 2015, 11:26 pm
Your persecution complex is at least entertaining as it is fascinating, in a bad train wreck sort of way
calron - April 4, 2015, 9:46 pm
The things is that prove not wrong doing happened doesn't follow from a failure to show thay no wrong doing happened, or wrong stuff wouldn't as the lack of previous evidence would mean it never happened. Both statement need proof.
calron - April 4, 2015, 9:44 pm
Nope, the common link is the basic premise of your argument. And that premise was true it would mean that I proved banks do not get robbed. It is a Reductio ad Absurdum of your statement and not even an a***ogy.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 8:56 pm
In case you didn't know what a false an'alogy is, mate ;-) http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_a***ogy Have a good night, mate! Hope you enjoy this most beautiful day. I am! :-D Cheers =)
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 8:53 pm
You are comparing an online debate to"bank robbery?" Hmm..a false a***ogy fallacy.For someone who pretends he's an authority on fallacies,that's a fallacy even a high school debater knows enough NOT to do. Maybe this is the perfect note to end this on ;-)
calron - April 4, 2015, 8:29 pm
It would be like saying that customers can properly withdrawal money from banks and that proves that banks do not get robbed. A proper means doesn't disprove possible improper means.
calron - April 4, 2015, 8:27 pm
Stereotyping me doesn't change the facts. The NOAA does adjust number. Saying that you proved the NOAA has done nothing wrong requires more evidence than you provided, or they could intentionally adjust improperly and still be proper at the same time.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 8:19 pm
P.S. You wrote this [#74587] in the middle of my response. For proper continuity read #74586 and #74588 together in between licking your wounds. That's all I got. Have a good one, mate! :-) Cheers
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 8:17 pm
And I think Rebecca's point was that you only have your own obtuseness to blame if we start ignoring you.And maybe we should, you're phoniness is getting old :-/ You are denier who is being dishonest about it - intentional or otherwise.Nuff said.Cheers =)
calron - April 4, 2015, 8:15 pm
Nope, as if what you are saying was valid them no one could even be proved wrong as evidence would have to be presented before it can exist. And if it doesn't exist then it cannot be shown. Thus your illicit negative is shown to be improper.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 8:13 pm
OK. enough for one day. Off to bike with some friends. We are just going in circles here anyways, mate. There is only so many ways I can show you are wrong before it's going in circles.
calron - April 4, 2015, 8:12 pm
So you once again refer to what you feel I think ion order to dodge the point and again return to the Strawman of saying I said something other that the proved statement that they NOAA adjusted numbers. Finally you go back to "prove me wrong".
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 8:11 pm
Nah, if I make the argument that God or Santa Claus doesn't exist because there is no evidence of him and you say, "prove he doesn't exist", that doesn't mean that if don't do that, I'm wrong or you're right. Hence, your appeal to ignorance.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 8:09 pm
I don't have to prove anything. You started this saying the NOAA was fixing the numbers and you used a source to back it up. I exposed your failure to do so. I didn't say you have to agree with me. The rest are sour gra**s from you on that.
calron - April 4, 2015, 8:08 pm
Nope, you stated that you proved they did nothing wrong. It's that illicit negative that you keep using the the place of actual proof to switch the burden of proof and use your own Appeal to Ignorance.
calron - April 4, 2015, 8:06 pm
So as we can see your "false equivalency fallacy" is dodging that you cannot prove the claim you made, so you reach a illicit negative (that's a fallacy) and attack me for pointing it out.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 8:05 pm
Ah, your "straw man STRAWMAN" again. I don't have to prove false accusations about the NOAA are wrong. You have to prove they are right - otherwise, you are doing the appeal to ignorance fallacy AGAIN.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 8:03 pm
Ah, but not when it comes to my opinions though. And you seem only concerned with that as far as this debate is concerned. In that realm, I'm the best judge of what I think.
calron - April 4, 2015, 8:03 pm
Nope sorry you just mode changed again. You said you proved that the NOAA was proved to have done nothing wrong. That is a seperate statement from saying that they where not proved to have done wrong and require its own evidence to back it up.
calron - April 4, 2015, 8:02 pm
Every person with a mind has a moral authority to decide truth. In disregarding that you are admitting to not debating honestly.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 8:01 pm
On #74573-Ah, and there is your false equivalency fallacy again, mate. That only works if it IS true the NOAA was unproven. It in fact, was not. And when you tried, you relied on a political biased source that was caught lying by the media.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:58 pm
But all I'm saying is that THIS is what the the science says on the subject. I never said YOU have to agree with it. And you are not in a position of moral authority to decide what the truth is. I am since it's my opinion you are obsessed with.
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:57 pm
So you did mode change the subject to avoid that made a claim on the NOAA was unproved. You even continued when I pointed the error out. Even them most MMCC studies do not reach a conclusion like that.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:55 pm
So....what "strawman STRAWMAN" am I committing to say: as long as I keep pointing that the scientific community backs MMCC, and that all I really care about, then I could care less about the rest since it's my opinion on that which you are obsessed with?
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:55 pm
So....what "strawman STRAWMAN" am I committing to say: as long as keep pointing that the scientific community backs MMCC, and that all I really care about, then I could care less about the rest since it's my opinion on that which you are obsessed with?
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:53 pm
No, it's not a red herring as you get what I think wrong and continue on that path with no regard for truth. And you do things like attack sources over arguments and then pretend to know how much credit I gives based of a lack of evidence.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:53 pm
That's funny, you create the straw man, straw man! X-D hahahah...Anyone who logically distills Calron's arguments into the fallacies put together by them MUST be making a straw man! hahahaha....Too funny mate :-)
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:51 pm
FACT - 10000s of peer-reviewed paper supporting MMCC theory. Only a handful do not. Do you "deny" this? *cue Jeopardy music*
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:50 pm
...while not giving ANY credit to respected groups like NASA, the NOAA or the groups they report on. So to add to your false equivalency logical fallacy, you are guilty of an dependency of redherrings ;-)
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:50 pm
Wow, did you just honestly switch issues on my statement in order to generate another strawman? I highly doubt that thousands of peer-reviewed factual studies of the NOAA's practices exist.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:49 pm
No, it's not, mate. And your old tired, excuse "how do you know what I'm thinking"? is a red herring. You are almost solely using evidence from politically biased deniers, ignoring what it says about you to use the telegraph for instance...
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:47 pm
What do you think those reviews were? An opinion poll? This is science, not a survey. lolololololol
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:47 pm
Ironically that is what is called and Argument From Ignorance. Additionally your claim of false equivalency is based off a improvable guess of what I'm thinking, allowing you to reject arguments with regard to facts or truth.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:46 pm
Really? That's all you wanted? Why didn't you just say so. That's an easy one....tens of thousands of peer-reviewed factual studies (and findings) that have held up VERSUS the few that have not. Happy now, mate? :-)
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:44 pm
Actually, no you didn't. To actually show you position that no wrong doing occurring would require a though review of the measurements and a general audit. Instead you are stating that your position is right because there is no evidence that it is wrong.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:43 pm
P.S. That is what a false equivalency logical fallacy is, mate. X-p
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:42 pm
public opinion. Next? ;-)
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:42 pm
The debate is not the same in quality on both sides, denier. The scientific community is pretty much on the same page on MM climate change and has weathered the silly so-called indictments against them. You pretend it is not by conflating a debate on
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:41 pm
And those people are fruit from a poisoned tree as I evidenced in #74528,#74530,#74532. Next? ;-)
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:41 pm
There is no false equivalency. You read things that are not there.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:40 pm
LMFAO...I sure did. ;-) You are just running at it, with this red-herring pretending that I didn't. I in fact quoted a fact-check source indicting your sources and showed you HOW your sources are wrong by indicting their methodology.#74528,#74530,#74532
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:40 pm
Your a**ertion that the NOAA did nothing wrong is not backed up by anything. I just listed an easily found source that had the underlying info to show that what I actually said was true. I then relied on people to be able to tell fact from opinion.
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:37 pm
LOL, you never showed that anything that the sources said was wrong, rather you took the you're right until proved wrong route and say it again and again as if it makes it right. Then you a**ign a improvable motive and attack me for your own creation.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:37 pm
Nope. You are using your false equivalency logical fallacy as your moral basis, and then creating a passive-aggressive straw man by using my refusal to grant you that fallacy as proof of your position.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:36 pm
Then why did you list as a source that claims the NOAA was guilty of a dishonest scandal to change its number? In a qualitative sense, the NOAA did nothing wrong in adjusting numbers to account for outliers. Glad they did.
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:35 pm
Nope, never said that I was right because an authority agreed with me, nor did I use pretend evidence. Rather you crafted a position for me and refuted that in place of what I actually said. NOAA adjsuted numbers. QED
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:34 pm
was shown as not only wrong but guilty of fallacy and dishonesty. Now you are moving the goal posts, saying that you were only trying to show how the NOAA admitted to tweaking its numbers when really they were NOT in the sense you admitted.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:33 pm
Ah, but only if you are trying to make that which is UNTRUE true by saying it again, and again. ;-) You want to suggest the NOAA is scandalously fixing the numbers. Listed a site that makes the accusation, and then hide your tale when the source
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:32 pm
Excpet as I've stated many times, I've only said they adjusted the number which has been proved. And of course you made your own claim that you proved someone wrong and therefor it is up to you to prove that claim, rather than go to the "prove me wrong".
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:30 pm
Proof by a**ertion is repeating a claim over and over as proof that it is true. And you're confusing a legal term with a fallacy to justify an Ad Hominem fallacy.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:29 pm
Nope. Again, with your false equivalency fallacy that you use my refusal to acknowledge as, ironically, your own passive-aggressive straw man. I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to prove the NOAA is guilty of scandal,which your sources fail to do.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:27 pm
On #74542, my sarcasm is a side point, for fun. In my main point, the one you evade, I'm not claiming to know what you think. Just indicting your words, which employ a false equivalency fallacy and an appeal to authority fallacy as their foundations.
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:27 pm
Nope, you said to proved they where wrong. Pointing out that you didn't actually do that is not a fallacy, but taking the quote of of context to change the meaning and dodge the point is. It's called a strawman and your own Negative Proof.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:25 pm
LMFAO Nope.It's not a proof of a**ertion if the person I'm a**erting against is guilty of a "fruit-of-the-forbidden-tree" fallacy and, for his foundation, is guilty of appeals to authority and false equivalent logical fallacies.Retake your Logic 101 class
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:24 pm
You really need to listen to what I said instead of refuting things I never said. The without a doubt adjusted numbers which is what I have said. The rest is an example of a Physiologist's Fallacy ie stating that you know what I think.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:23 pm
Calron said,"you never actually showed that they where wrong" And this was an appeal to ignorance fallacy. I don't have to prove, for instance, that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But you do have to prove that the NOAA is guilty of scandal.
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:22 pm
So looks like you're now in Proof by a**ertion territory. You really should learn to separate the opinion from the facts the opinion is based on. Without a doubt the NOAA adjusted numbers exactly as I said they did. Your deflections will not change that.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:21 pm
Nah, you're not the judge of how I argue - which is your appeal to authority fallacy, again.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:20 pm
The NOAA quote in #74529 is NOT an admission to any scandals (which is what your telegraph source claims). But YOUR listing of it is a peak into that skewed psyche of yours. haha
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:18 pm
Nope, you never actually showed that they where wrong. rather you attacked their motives as if that somehow your ability to insult makes you right and then falsely accused and attacked me as well. So you have proved you argue by Ad Hominem.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:18 pm
Nah, you are misreading what the NOAA is saying by misrepresenting their data to fit a false narrative about a scandal they never admitted to. And the article is claiming a scandal, without proof, which the NOAA has NEVER confessed to. Finished yet? ;-)
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:17 pm
Nah, you listed the Telegraph as a source (which didn't do that at all, but in fact lied) then another biased conservative tabloid - The Dailymail - which also misrepresented data. *yawn* Finished yet? ;-)
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:15 pm
Without a doubt number have been adjusted just as I said. By the NOAA's own admission as well. And of course that is the statement that I made, the rest is something you read into my statement that is not really there.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:15 pm
Nah, denier. Nice red-herring. But you left out how I also showed HOW Booker's source was wrong, mate. ;-) Read comments #74528,#74530,#74532
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:14 pm
"This is not at all the case, and those adjustments are a normal and important part of climate science." End of fact check. In other words, Booker is full of poop.lol
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:14 pm
So again with attacking the source rather than the evidence. You also forgot I used the NOAA as a source as well. But I guess the NOAA doesn't count as an authority on the NOAA because you want to beat that Strawman.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:13 pm
"Both writers focused on the adjustments made to temperature readings at certain monitoring stations around the world, and claimed that those adjustments throw the entire science of global warming into question..."
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:11 pm
the NOAA, "Therefore, to be effectively monitored requires not only observations but also adjustments to the historical data to remove or at least greatly diminish artificial biases."
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:11 pm
So....an ACTUAL source from a fact checker on YOUR source,"The 'report' to which Palmer referred was actually a series of blog posts, written by climate change denier Paul Homewood, which were then highly publicized in two stories by Christopher Booker.."
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:10 pm
Nope, I listed it as proof they they adjust number. I have also now listed the NOAA themselves as evidence that they adjust numbers. But choosing to hyperfocus on your Ad Hominem over facts that make you wrong is a Strawmn argument.
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:09 pm
Yep out with that Ad Hominem debate style again. Try attacking the evidence instead.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:08 pm
LMAO..Nope, you listed the telegraph as a source, with the bold statement that it was proof that the NOAA is fixing the numbers. And then you ignore the indictment of that source as false and biased. (again,back to the subject at hand)
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:08 pm
Nope, posted that before you response showed up. I Went and got it as additional evidence that the NOAA adjusts number is the exactly how they say they so. Your hyperfocus on one bit thus choosing to ignore additional information is a type of Strawman.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:07 pm
In the Telegraph's source, the blog by listed by Booker citing Homewood, says this - About our site - "Bringing some sanity to the Climate Change." It's not even an official science outlet, just an opinion blog with an admitted agenda.
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:06 pm
LoL, no. Your choosing to hyperfocus on that one article and then claim as if you read my mind that I was blindly following that while at the same time choosing to dismiss information that says otherwise. And of course ignoring what I actually said.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:04 pm
...and quietly ignoring with the Daily Mail citation with your red-herring. It's not an ad hominem to expose you as wrong in a debate. (back to the subject at hand)
calron - April 4, 2015, 7:03 pm
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:03 pm
Nah, I'm not going to let you get away with a red-herring, mate. We are talking about YOUR choice to blindly list the telegraph as your source. We can address your other tabloid if it is necessary. You are now stacking the deck fallacy...
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 7:02 pm
Homewood is the owner of an amateur conservative wordpress blog. It's irresponsible of a wannabe journalist like Booker, let alone the Telegraph, to use that as proof in an serious accusation against a respected, reputable organization like the NOAA.
calron - April 4, 2015, 6:59 pm
So again with the Ad Hominem. The NOAA has stated that they adjusted the numbers and that is all I mentioned. http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/09/more-evidence-of-climate-data-tampering-by-noaa/ I usually error toward incompetence.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 6:58 pm
Furthermore, Booker blindly depends on Homewood as a source without offering Homewood's methology or studies. Basically Booker is saying, "this is a scandal because Paul Homewood and his blog says it is." So, another fallacy ;-) begging the question.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 6:56 pm
So, his evidence for the scandal is Paul Homewood and "his blog"? Yeah, right. Booker says that "[Homewood] had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations." yet Homewood is not an authority on the subject.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 6:53 pm
In fact, his sole evidence on these so-called scandlous 'adjustments' in Notalotofpeopleknowthat.blog. That's his source???? bwhahahahahahaha hhahahah
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 6:51 pm
a REAL journalist doesnt use the word "fanatical" to describe another.That's a REAL "ad hominem" ;-) He's discussing the discrepancies of reporting among weather stations and then launches into an "ad hominem"(lol)against the govt without fully saying why
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 6:47 pm
Christopher Booker's unqualified opinion/OP-ed on the NOAA is not PROOF that the NOAA is guilty of a scandal to "adjust the numbers." He even admits that this is just "his take" on things in a follow-up interview on the subject.
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 6:45 pm
Surrrrrrrrre....it's a conspiracy. Because a conservative tabloid says so. Telegragh confesses to having a politico-conservative bias. Christopher Booker is not even a scientist. His opinion on this is about as valid as the person who watches my dog..lol
calron - April 4, 2015, 4:49 pm
calron - April 4, 2015, 4:43 pm
Don't worry, the NOAA adjusted the number to turn the slight decline into a warming trend. The reason they have for this is that they didn't measure the temps in a consistent manner and had to adjust them to make up for it.

winter storm Venus -

TAGS: extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof and in man made climate change there is none
Rating: 4/5

More politifakes by OTC

calron - May 16, 2015, 8:12 pm
Climate =/= weather.

Liberal's gospel: the 97% consensus -

Climate Research And Propaganda Of Liberal Activists (C.R.A.P.O.L.A.) -

TAGS: man made hoax climate change
Rating: 3.91/5

More politifakes by OTC

rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 10:49 am
ts;dc dt :)
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 13, 2015, 10:36 am
Sounds legitimate when you consider that the poster isn't mine, but nice of you to post your opinion. ;o)
rebeccaolsen - May 12, 2015, 12:16 pm
Maybe you did it, so you can play the victim and run around whining your head off, saying, "See?!?! Look how everyone is picking on us science deniers!" Your-Persecution-Complex FTW :)
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 12, 2015, 11:57 am
I believe there is a evil cabal who only come above ground or out of their coffins when summoned
OTC - May 11, 2015, 4:05 pm
Lol, 23 votes in one day, mostly low votes. I must have pushed someone's bu.ttons

Global Warming Is Man-Made Up -

join the big L.I.E -

TAGS: man made climate change liberal view
Rating: 3.81/5

More politifakes by OTC

mittromney - June 7, 2015, 10:07 pm
/Your mother is doing fine. She wanted me to tell you that you could move back in when you get a job and get help for your internet addiction./
OTC - May 12, 2015, 11:03 am
You seem to like inflating and deflating, how's your girlfriend doing?
mittromney - May 9, 2015, 10:15 pm
/well...you are "inflating" your own ego when all else fails. So I "see" that...But I'd be "lying" if I said your "comebacks" or your tinfoil hat are doing you any good. You don't have to be "a liberal" to "see" that, you just have to be smart...."See?"/
OTC - May 9, 2015, 6:26 pm
See, inflating a lie
mittromney - May 9, 2015, 1:52 pm
/Self-deprecating humor might work as a dodge if it wasn't already true that only person you ever make fun of with this stuff is yourself./
OTC - May 9, 2015, 12:44 pm
And no, we don't run out of tin foil in the park. we draw straws to see who gets to go to Wal-Mart in pajamas to buy more
OTC - May 9, 2015, 12:42 pm
I know this is hard for liberals to understand, but one can disagree with something and not have a hatred for it, or for that matter, you can disagree with someone of another race & not be a racist. Hard to wrap your mind around it so don't think too long
mittromney - May 9, 2015, 11:06 am
/I don't argue on the network in comment after comment with others about romney. nor do I obsessively make politifakes about the tard.Romney is only my avatar. Hating on AGW is your life. I'm guessing they've run out of tinfoil again at your trailer park/
OTC - May 9, 2015, 10:23 am
So says the troll with the Mitt Romney obsession
mittromney - May 9, 2015, 3:34 am
Don’t want to “deflate" your political football or your hater obsession with AGW, OCD, but your comeback is about as worthless as the tin-foil hat you are wearing./
mittromney - May 9, 2015, 3:27 am
/Someone has to keep them in check, on a message board?! LMBAO Let’s face it, the only thing standing in the way of those dangerous scientists and their plot to take over the world with their evil AGW studies are a rebel alliance of heroic internet trolls
Curlyrocks - May 9, 2015, 1:54 am
Well said, it may be over argued but the fact remains that human beings become dangerous and let's face it crazy over apocalyptic end of the word tales and some one needs to keep them in check.
OTC - May 9, 2015, 12:21 am
I'd rather discuss liberals inflating a lie
mittromney - May 8, 2015, 9:43 pm
/This is borrrrrring. www.politifake.org/comments/62780 Looking at you./ Why don't you politifakers discuss something important? like the New England Patriots deflating footballs/

Bobby Jindal -

TAGS: man made climate change bobby jindal truth
Rating: 3.67/5

More politifakes by OTC

DebtToAmerica - March 1, 2015, 6:03 pm
they want people to say climate change is not manmade, because they can then say "see? he's crazy! dont listen to him when he says our solutions are stupid!"
DebtToAmerica - March 1, 2015, 6:02 pm
exactly! unfortunately, the only way to argue against their anti-free-market bull**** is to shift the discussion away from "is it manmade or not" so time can be spent explaining just how ineffective and stupid their suggested solutions are.

Political Scams -

What it looks like inside of the mind of a climate change denier -

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
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.

Graphs in the hands of man-made climate-change deniers... -

Republican Facts -

TAGS: man made climate change christian fundamentalism
Rating: 2.45/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

MMessEnnBeeCee - March 22, 2015, 1:39 pm
Say, did you ever see them count the votes in a presiential election? No? Well I guess that didn't happen either.
fauxnews - February 19, 2015, 1:11 am
We still live in the dark ages. We are just better at bull****ting ourselves about it than they were
Zeitguy - February 18, 2015, 11:43 pm
Carnations or Lillys? My dearest condolences. But really, why do modern intellectual human beings have to pander to this middle age bull****?
fauxnews - February 18, 2015, 11:31 pm
A request? Sure... If I get beheaded, send flowers to my fam. ;-)
Zeitguy - February 18, 2015, 10:53 pm
Dare ya to make an Islam prophet p******** poster.

T h e T e a P a r t y -

Explaining Science to a Republican -

Fun things to do with a liberal -

papers in review -

TAGS: man made climate change
Rating: 2/5

More politifakes by OTC

OTC - June 9, 2015, 4:51 pm
Comment #68557 (immutable truth)
OTC - June 9, 2015, 4:51 pm
Comment #68557 (immutable truth)
fauxnews - June 9, 2015, 2:07 pm
Translation (OTC): How stupid can doze dang liberuls get? Everyone knows that zombie Jesus was real, Jade 15 is Obama's secret plan to declare martial law in Texas, and MMCC is a hoax.And yes, everyone is marching out of step except me..like I said,crazy!
OTC - June 9, 2015, 8:15 am
I stand corrected, you're just plain crazy
fauxnews - June 8, 2015, 5:59 pm
Nah, the poster foolishly confused a book report with a test paper in a hilarious stroke of self-parody,when trying to mock people who are smarter(and more qualified)than you on this subject,and you are too embarrassed to admit you got "smoked" for it X-D
OTC - June 8, 2015, 5:54 pm
The poster is about peer reviewed MMCC papers, and you're off on some tangent about conspiracies and illustrations, you're obviously smoking something
fauxnews - June 8, 2015, 5:25 pm
#76971(OTC said),"Conspiracy?!? That narrows it down a red herring cigarettes" From the album,"STUPID SH*T SAID BY 'MURICANS.Vol9" In stores now (where you can find tinfoil and other fine household products) Limited Time Offer while supplies last!! X-D
OTC - June 8, 2015, 4:50 pm
Conspiracy?!? LOL, that narrows it down a red herring cigarettes
fauxnews - June 7, 2015, 4:34 pm
the quite same [sic] X-D
fauxnews - June 7, 2015, 4:32 pm
Your [sic] in over your head, Cranky. X-D OTC has moved onto to bigger things - Jade 15 and the conspiracy theory that Obama is gunna invade Texas wit da guvmint...P.S. Welcome back, sir! The place isn't the quite same without you. *evil grin* Cheers :-)
crankyhead - June 7, 2015, 4:25 pm
If you hand in a report of 'Hamlet', when the a**ignment was to do a report on 'Catcher in the Rye', then yeah, you're wrong, regardless of how accurate your report of 'Hamlet' happens to be.
fauxnews - June 7, 2015, 2:26 pm
[sic] X-D
fauxnews - June 7, 2015, 2:12 pm
lol You're conspiracy theories are getting dumber with every comment.
OTC - June 7, 2015, 1:53 pm
So you're whole argument with this is a bad illustration? ROFL. Another red herring? Bitter from an F on your book report? Back on cigs again? Injured working on your bike? Or just feel the need to nitpick?
fauxnews - June 6, 2015, 10:40 pm
I know that if you were graded on a book report about test papers, you would get a failing grade for not knowing the difference, mate. X-D Cheers
fauxnews - June 6, 2015, 10:38 pm
Yes Zeit, that was the point, awesome job.
OTC - June 6, 2015, 10:31 pm
No zeit, that wasn't the point, try again
OTC - June 6, 2015, 10:30 pm
So you never been graded on a book report? That's Common Core for ya
fauxnews - June 6, 2015, 3:21 pm
Have a good one, mate. Cheers :-)
fauxnews - June 6, 2015, 3:20 pm
But if you're in the habit of DENYING science,a core part of academia,it would make sense you would DENY all-of-it. I bet when you got your F in science,you convinced yourself the F stood for FUN.And they'd be right! ;-) As Im sharing your excuses now too
fauxnews - June 6, 2015, 3:15 pm
The exact words of your "poster", OTC, was "Is like having Teacher-reviewed TEST PAPERS." as in: www.testpaper.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/test-papers.jpg There isn't a single school out there that uses that vernacular to describe "book reports."
fauxnews - June 6, 2015, 3:08 pm
Riiight, and this guy meant to spell "moron" with an A http://s21.ph**obucket.com/user/forester1/media/Junk/moran.jpg.html I doubt you meant it to come out THAT WAY,since it would only serve to mock deniers.Which is why I love your excuses now. BONUS! X-D
Zeitguy - June 6, 2015, 1:34 pm
That's your argument to dismiss AGW? Because it's Peer reviewed? Well let us dismiss every valid scientific theory over the last century. Good one.
OTC - June 6, 2015, 12:14 pm
Riiiight, because a book report doesn't "test" ones ability to read a book & make a report of your comprehension of what you read. Teachers make students give book reports because they've run out of things to teach. (Is that your book report BTW?)
fauxnews - June 5, 2015, 9:32 pm
That's a book report BTW. Not a test. X-D This poster is actually perfect, just the way it is. I'm sharing this...BIG TIME *evil grin*

man can change temperature readings -

TAGS: noaa change temperature readings man made climate change hoax
Rating: 1.93/5

More politifakes by OTC

OTC - June 15, 2015, 6:58 pm
Over 30 votes in less than a day, I didn't just push but.tons, I stepped on some toes rolf

Man-made CO2 "causes" temperatures to rise? -