FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The truth is that this story is about far more than Project Veritas having financial issues. This is typical of your defense of MAGA miscreants of all stripes. You criticize the source and then deliberately mischaracterize the story and/or its underlying facts. And then you whine about being called out for it.

Every. Single. Time.

Oh, and O'Keefe is indeed a liar, grifter and a fraud like all MAGA personalities. Indeed, the entire MAGA movement is a criminal enterprise. You'll eventually learn this. Maybe (you're really slow on the uptake).

The truth is I made no comment about the story's content. You did, and in the process suggested I was defending someone. You lied. Just like you do:

Every. Single. Time.

Sorry you don't like the truth, but there it is.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

His article stated that he believed that climate change was a indeed a significant factor in increased wildfires, but that somehow he was compelled, due to unwritten academic pressures, to deemphasize other factors in a paper written with 6 other authors. Uh, OK. What are the views of his 6 co-authors? Squabbles in academia over what gets published in journals are as old as academia itself. His article proves exactly nothing new about the publish-or-perish ethos in academia (except maybe his own paranoia and sense of victimhood so prevalent in MAGAWorld).

Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Johnson and Tucker Carlson go on TV and say that windmills kill whales.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/20/us/wh...ate/index.html

That wasn't his point. I highlighted his primary point, but you chose to ignore it. And you have no clue what his politics are, so your reflexive association of his article with "MAGAWorld" is simply more of your mischaracterizing, lying BS.

[Mark B]

Originally Posted by finnbow

His article stated that he believed that climate change was a indeed a significant factor in increased wildfires, but that somehow he was compelled, due to unwritten academic pressures, to deemphasize other factors in a paper written with 6 other authors. Uh, OK. What are the views of his 6 co-authors? Squabbles in academia over what gets published in journals are as old as academia itself. His article proves exactly nothing new about the publish-or-perish ethos in academia (except maybe his own paranoia and sense of victimhood so prevalent in MAGAWorld).

Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Johnson and Tucker Carlson go on TV and say that windmills kill whales.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/20/us/wh...ate/index.html

From the Daily Mail article that I posted a link to above in my previous post:

"The editor-in-chief of one of the world's leading academic journals has rebuked a scientist who claimed that research about climate change is rejected if it does not 'support certain narratives'.

Dr Magdalena Skipper, the top editor at Nature, accused Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and doctor of earth and climate sciences, of 'poor research practices' that are 'highly irresponsible'."

[Chicks]

GOP Sen. Ron Johnson Parrots Misinformation That ‘Windmills Are Killing the Whales’
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...es-1234821737/

Whell’s kind of “science”. Such a moron.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Mark B

From the Daily Mail article that I posted a link to above in my previous post:

"The editor-in-chief of one of the world's leading academic journals has rebuked a scientist who claimed that research about climate change is rejected if it does not 'support certain narratives'.

Dr Magdalena Skipper, the top editor at Nature, accused Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and doctor of earth and climate sciences, of 'poor research practices' that are 'highly irresponsible'."

In other words, he is yet another fraudulent MAGAt.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

In other words, he is yet another fraudulent MAGAt.

In other words, you know nothing about him, particularly his political bent, but you're willing to go beyond speculating and conclude what his politics are.

You're disgusting.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Mark B

From the Daily Mail article that I posted a link to above in my previous post:

"The editor-in-chief of one of the world's leading academic journals has rebuked a scientist who claimed that research about climate change is rejected if it does not 'support certain narratives'.

Dr Magdalena Skipper, the top editor at Nature, accused Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and doctor of earth and climate sciences, of 'poor research practices' that are 'highly irresponsible'."

Brown's response, if you care to read it:

https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

In other words, you know nothing about him, particularly his political bent, but you're willing to go beyond speculating and conclude what his politics are.

You're disgusting.

His whininess is telltale, as is yours.

When the reflexive defender of a quadruply-indicted subliterate criminal defendant, adjudicated rapist, malignant narcissist and compulsive liar calls you disgusting, it can only be interpreted as a compliment. Much appreciated.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by finnbow

His whininess is telltale, as it is with you.

That guy's tantrums are getting tiresome.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

When the reflexive defender of a quadruply-indicted subliterate criminal defendant, adjudicated rapist, malignant narcissist and compulsive liar calls you disgusting, it can only be interpreted as a compliment. Much appreciated.

Another example of you lying just to score a cheap debate point. Bravo.