More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

[Pete McCluskey.]

Hay Pete, did you know that Drop Bear is not in the dictionary?

You are kidding it must be an American dictionary, bet it hasn't got root or Galah in it either.
Here is the Australian Museam's report.
Drop Bear - Australian Museum

 

[Jim Craik]

Yes Pete, I'm kidding.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Here is the dictionary definition....Definition of drop bear | Collins English Dictionary

Jim, you may be kidding but I have proof that drop bears exist, thousands of recognised scientist have studied the drop bear. See museum report above.
I don't know why you Liberals keep denying that Drop Bears exist, next you will be saying that mankind can warm the planet...ridiculous.
You are now formally classified as a grumpy old Drop Bear denier.

 

[Jim Craik]

Pete my question was a play on the "how to tell if someone is gullible test".

You know, you ask them............

"Did you know that gullible is not in the dictionary?........

 

[Mark]

Al Gore invests in a fracking company. what a total hypocrite./QUOTE]


Pete,

You Consevatives are incredably gullible!!!!!!

This article comes from the Daily Current, a publication that posts parody! You know what parody means, a parody is presenting fiction in a way that makes it appear to be a fact.

You know, like what Fox does.


!

Sorry Jim, but that is not an example of parody and your explanation as to what parody is, is also incorrect.

A parody is the imitation of something serious, but done in such a way as to make it appear humorous. What you are describing is something entirely different, simply misrepresentation of fact, to appear non factual, or fiction as fact, such as man made global warming science.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Sorry Jim, but that is not an example of parody and your explanation as to what parody is, is also incorrect.

A parody is the imitation of something serious, but done in such a way as to make it appear humorous. What you are describing is something entirely different, simply misrepresentation of fact, to appear non factual, or fiction as fact, such as man made global warming science.

We need a "like" button for comments like this one!

p.s. What is it called when someone has to (vainly) explain their humor?

 

[Jim Craik]

Once Again, Internet Falls For False Story:

After having successfully fooled the Washington Post, Boston.com, Breitbart.com, and the Drudge Report with its “satirical” news stories, you’d think most people would realize by now that The Daily Currant is a fake news website that mocks conservative personalities with fake articles about them doing openly racist or buffoonish things in public. But just as many people (including active congressmen) still don’t know that The Onion is fake news, it seems as though much of the Internet is still stuck falling for the Currant’s ****parodies**** as well

Say Mark, I have ****highlighted**** the word "parodies" in this discription.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

So? Who was the publisher of that article and how do you know they were correct in the use of parodies in that context?

 

[Jim Craik]

That's great Pete, questioning an article like that.......i'm very impressed!

You are well on your way to beating this gullible thing.

 

[Mark]

I actually believe in drop bears, ask Pete.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

That's great Pete, questioning an article like that.......i'm very impressed!

You are well on your way to beating this gullible thing.

Why not just answer the question?

 

[Jim Craik]

Why not just answer the question?

Because you would not believe me anyway........

Let me help you in your quest to check out stories........

Now the header on the story I posted was "Once Again, Internet Falls For False Story:"

I'm willing to bet that if you go to google and type in those words, that the article will come up.

Or you could do what I did, after Mark insisted that the Daily Current was not parody, I googled:

"Daily Current, parody", this article about Ann Coulter poped up with that paragraph.

I think the reason Mark did not see it as "parody" is perception.

I read the article and I saw immediately saw it was meant to be absurd, or as Mark said about "parody"...."done in such a way as to make it appear humorous".

But if someone read that same article and actually believed it, he would not find it funny at all, he would find it "outragous", which is not "humorous" and would not fall under parody.

*****************

Pete,

This works for almost any article. You could go to google and type in:

"Did Al Gore really buy into a fracking company?"

That way you would know it was not true before you post it, that will save you a lot of grief and I would not have to call out a friend

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

:squint:Because I wouldn't believe you?...I thought you said I was gullible!

Keith, sorry mate but I'm going to go fishing again soon.

 

[Keith]

Pete, I just happened on this thread again because I've unsubscribed - it got far too narcissistic for me I'm afraid...:thumbsdown:

The Good News is - you've been promoted to Friend.

That IS Good News isn't it Bruce?

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

No I don't think I have been promoted, I think the friend Jim was referring to was alluding to the quiz show where you could call a friend if you didn't know the answer.

 

[Keith]

You can't use those Kraicster machinations on me mate.

There is no doubt what he meant..

"That way you would know it was not true before you post it, that will save you a lot of grief and I would not have to call out a friend"

Call out. That is Kraicster and Youngspeak for correcting people they don't agree with. It has nothing whatever to do with game shows and he put a smiley at the end. For you.

You have been outed well and truly and you will have to report to the Angry Old White Guys Truth & Loyalty Committeeto explain just how this has happened to a founder member.Very disappointed mate- I didn't see this one coming. Pete, a friend of Liberals...my God, tut tut, whatever next.

 

[Mark]

Burn the witch

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

:embarassed::embarassed:Oh the shame!:embarassed::embarassed:

 

[Bob Fechter]

"Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases."

Read more: Global warming 'pause' may last for 20 more years and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover | Mail Online

 

[Mark]

I hate to be the one to say it, but, I told you so!

The really sad thing is, that I am not particularly clever, yet I could/can spot this BS, so why can't others? Do they not want to?

I conclude there are two camps of MMGW believers:
1. Those so self important, that they cannot possibly believe man is not able to control the UNIVERSAL weather
2. Those clever enough to exploit members of group number 1.