Hey, Global Warming Fanatics: How Does It Feel To Be Lied To?

Another worthless opinion from you. What else did I expect?

 

For good measure, a scientist who worked on the project that produced the paper criticized in the Daily Mail took the time to point out some of the most blatant misrepresentations. Very telling is the fact that the "whistleblower" didn't actually work on the project.

"On the Mail on Sunday article on Karl et al., 2015" | Icarus

"Having worked with the NOAA NCEI team involved in land and SST data analysis I can only say that the accusations in the piece do not square one iota with the robust integrity I see in the work and discussions that I have been involved in with them for over a decade."

 

"This is the blog of the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units". Period!

 

Peter Thorne, the author of that piece, is Director of the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units group (ICARUS). He's a respected climatologist, and was "involved in and [is] a co-author upon all relevant underlying papers to Karl et al., 2015." He knows what he's talking about, unlike the reporter who wrote the article in the Daily Mail. He explains that the "whistleblower" is misrepresenting the Karl et al. paper, and shows examples of how the paper is misrepresented in the Daily Mail. I'll spell it out for you: "misrepresentation" in this context is a polite way of saying "obvious lies."

 

Not seeing it. Which post number is it back in 2011. Obviously, if it exists, I rarely quote them.

 

Post #21:

 

I didn't quote the Daily Mail. Whoever wrote the article back in 2011 quoted the Daily Mail. And really, I quote the Daily Mail all the time you say? Hardly.

 

No, dear. First of all, you quoted the Daily Mail when you quoted the article. Secondly, I didn't say you quoted the Daily Mail "all the time". I said you quoted them as if "it were the gospel". Third, you quoted the Daily Mail when you posted an article by them (see the link at the bottom of your post below):

Now, if you don't agree with the Daily Mail then you shouldn't post articles by them or information attributed to them.

 

You live in an alternative fact free zone I have no interest in contesting much less going down the rabbit hole of nonsensical gibberish you routinely spew. Clearly, I do not "..quote the Daily Mail as if it were gospel." Posting an article 6 or 7 years ago that referenced the Daily Mail as part of its story is not even close to that absurd assertion.

The problem with you Reich-wing fanatics is that you never back down from a complete lie. You just double down on your stupidity and refuse to admit you are wrong when you get called out. I'm sure you see yourselves as superior to everyone else especially your political enemies but the truth is that you only come off as close-minded, intransigent, ego-driven, ideologues with no moral underpinnings and a sense of steroid fed self-aggrandizement the rest of us see through pretty easily.

 

Consider it backed up!

 

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source for website
Source: The Guardian

Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group "generally unreliable".

The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.

The editors described the arguments for a ban as "centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication".

The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia but does not control its editing processes, said in a statement that volunteer editors on English Wikipedia had discussed the reliability of the Mail since at least early 2015.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

 

Then stop quoting them!!!!

 

I think it was previously determined that I haven't quoted them but facts just aren't your friend. Talking points and bullshit memes on the other hand...well, they are perfectly OK in your opinion.

 

No dummy! You DID quote The Daily Mail!!! Read the post below and then click the link at the bottom. You're entitled to your alternative opinions, but you're not entitled to your alternative facts. Witness:

 

I never posted the article you're now claiming I posted. You're just flat out lying because you are too small to admit you were wrong. I understand. You're a just a little pussy.

 

verb
verb: quote; 3rd person present: quotes; past tense: quoted; past participle: quoted; gerund or present participle: quoting
1.
repeat or copy out (a group of words from a text or speech), typically with an indication that one is not the original author or speaker.

You copied the words from The Daily Mail. Therefor you quoted them.

 

Like so many others of his ilk, Joe simply won't admit to willfully misleading others.

 

What the hell are you talking about? You posted the article back when your screen name was Moen1305. Are you blind or are you stupid?

 

No, I didn't.

I posted part of this article which included the author quoting something from the Daily Mail.

I have no idea what the article in your post #34 is from. I'd walk away with your tail between your legs at this point if I were you but I know you always double down on your lies so have at it.

 

So you copied an article from The Daily Mail. That is defined as quoting. PERIOD!

http://partisanlines.com/threads/what-should-be-obamas-next-move-concerning-libya.3501/#post-60163