Wait... all religous people are
whackos so that does not work.
Not exact matches
Why do creationists and pseudoscience
whackos always use the term «
so - called scientists?»
So, your idea of a good leader is to say whatever the
whackos behind you want to hear?
Of course, when they make them in other areas, we call them «
whackos» or «loons» or «woos»,
so that is the company you keep when you take this type of approach.
«In between Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street, there were
so many slasher films where it was just some
whacko with a knife, and in those films there's a kind of ugliness in a way.
Herman Alexander Pope's model — too qualitative M.A.Vukcevic — too obscure Fred H. Haynie — bad premise Oliver K. Manuel —
whacko Harry Dale Huffman — double
whacko Girma Orssengo — trendology does not make a model Tony (climatereason) Brown — reliance on anecdotal info David Postma — bad physics Arno Arrack — bad writing makes it inscrutable Nasif Nahle — bad experimentation Chief Hydrologist — appeal to authority model Joachim Seifert — if I have to pay for it, it's not worth looking at Stephen Wilde — a lawyer's model Nicola Scafetta — use enough variables and one can fit anything Alexander Biggs — a half - way - there model The SkyDragons — say no more «Joe's World» LaLonde — an idea written with crayons Stefan «TheDenier» Mikitch — a crazed Chewbacca Defense model David Wojick — some sort of anti-model that teaches «controversy» Doug Cotton — a SkyDragon acolyte Paul Vaughn — Pay him some money please
so he can work his ideas out
So the models are
whacko.
I list that site in particular as it does seem to be the main home of the deniers and
whackos and
so I feel a team of dedicated WUWT rebutters would be useful in a similar way that http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/ keeps an eye on Monckton.