Another of the dumb things I’ve noticed leftards do of late is dismiss Climate Realists (or “Climate Sceptics” as they diss them as) who post information showing the reality of climate change / global warming / Man-made global warming – because it was on a blog or a messageboard and not a scientific paper. Even though if they’d bothered to actually read the bloody thing they’d realise it was relaying information from scientific papers calling their beloved climate change religion a load of crap based on bad science out into the mainstream and in a digestible format for people who might not otherwise know where to find or even tackle reading such things.
Then when you point this out to them that Climate Realist blogs pass on info from Scientific papers in a similar way to Newspapers + TV News Stations get information from the like of AP & Reuters, the fucktards cut off your comment (about relaying information) and call you stupid…..
Just because a blog or messageboard says Climate change is bollocks doesn’t make it less relavent because “it isn’t a peer reviewed scientific paper”, as all the majority of them are doing is relaying details of peer reviewed scientific papers that says Climate Change / Global Warming / Man-made global warming is bollocks out into the mainstream where more people can see them…. just like blogs / news articles, etc pitching climate change / global warming as a religion do (even if most of pro-global warming ones seem to recycle old information as true from a couple of years before climate realists later showed them to be either wrong or potentially wrong)
‘ Just because a blog or messageboard says Climate change is bollocks doesn’t make it less relavent because “it isn’t a peer reviewed scientific paper”‘
A researched scientific paper fashioned by an educated expert in the field trumps a private blog or message board posting. How one suggests that it doesn’t is baffling.
@john duck: ‘doesn’t make it less relavent because “it isn’t a peer reviewed scientific paper”,’
Are you really stupid or just delusional?
read the rest of it where it mentions that while they may not be scientific papers, they do RELAY SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, as in BASE INFORMATION IN THE BLOG ON STUFF WRITTEN IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS…. kinda like how newspapers + TV news stations get stuff from news agencies such as AP or Reuters and pass them on, rather than do the hardwork themselves *rollseyes* some people on here really need to go to bloody SpecSavers ^
Their other favourite thing seems to be, particularly when you point fingers at Climategate to show their views aren’t as much a “Scientific consensus” they stomp their feet insisting it is by them then pointing fingers at articles in New Scientist magazine from 2007 (2 years before Climategate was revealed) insisting it is true because that magazine from 2yrs before it was shown to be dodgy says so.