England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[itfitzme]

When you post something worthy of a reasoned reply, you will get a reasoned reply.

In 2007, the AGW cult claimed 100% of arctic ice would be gone by the summer of 2013. There has been a 60% increase and you call that insignificant.

You criticize the math and reasoning skills of others, but cannot construct a cogent sentence.

Exactly what I am saying, when you post something worthy of a reasoned reply, you will get a reasoned response.

Otherwise, I will simply present it as you do, and point out you are either disingenuous or a moron. The only question is, which one is being generous?

The fact that there is a 60% increase over a minimum is meaningless. The fact that the prediction was off is meaningless. Your not making a reasonable and relevant scientific point. So, either you really are a moron and don't get it, or your just a disingenuous ass hat.

Personally, I suspect you are a disingenuous ass hat that is intentionally ignorant.

 

[itfitzme]

When you post something worthy of a reasoned reply, you will get a reasoned reply.

In 2007, the AGW cult claimed 100% of arctic ice would be gone by the summer of 2013. There has been a 60% increase and you call that insignificant.

You criticize the math and reasoning skills of others, but cannot construct a cogent sentence.

" cannot construct a cogent sentence" Well, apparently I have because you managed to read and reply. So that would be more made up bullshit on your part.

Yes, I do. I do because it is so obvious to anyone with a high school education that 60% of a historical low is not some grand achievement.

The fact is, that it is simple bs. I know, and you know, what 60% increase of a record minimum doesn't mean shit. That is being generous. The alternative is that you really don't know and are just dumb.

When you want to present something of reasonably scientific relevance to the issue of global warming, your welcome to do so.

But, at this point, I am just annoyed at the constant re-posting of the same ignorant bs.

The fact that you don't like it is your own personal problem.

 

[itfitzme]

The bottom line is fairly simple. The body of evidence makes it perfectly clear that global warming has been in place since about 1910. The fact is that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and CO2 has continued to climb and is significantly correlated to the rise in temperature. The reality is that these two facts demonstrate to a scientifically significant level that CO2 increase is responsible for the majority of the warming. Other factors include methane, H2O and other GHG. This is not in dispute. As well, the majority of the natural variability is fully accounted for, including the ocean heating cycles. That 1998 was a record year and that the increase does not present itself as being statistically significant from 1998 to 2013 has no bearing on the long term trend. What is clear is that the trend has, since 1910, demonstrated short periods of decrease and flat spots.

Over the century, the methods for measurement have improved significantly. Ground based measurements of temperature have been improved with quality controlled stations. Measurements have been augmented with satellite measurements. Ocean temperature data that was taken by military and commercial vessels using a bucket and a thermometer are now taken with an array of buoys, 3000 of them. And with all this improvement, no statistically, that is scientifically significant evidence has presented itself to suggest that the global warming trend is not a fact. What has happened is that the science has become more and more refined.

The data and presentation of the data are available at NOAA, USGS, Met, Argo, and NASA. It is available for anyone with a modest interest in analyzing the data themselves. And, given that Excel has a good statistical analysis add on, anyone that can use a computer can examine the data themselves. Any reasonable individual that makes the attempt can know exactly what it means that there is a 95% confidence level that global warming has been caused by rising GHG as a result of human population. And, a 95% confidence level can be expressed intuitively as saying there is a 95% confidence level that you will die or be severely injured from a 30 ft fall. No one gives a crap that there is a 5% chance of not being injured. And, frankly, when it comes to the science of AWG, as with all science, the confidence level is typically understated.

The problem I see with the science deniers is that they are emotionally invested in some political issue or another. The same well worn memes are dragged out, over and over and over again, only to be shot down, and dragged out again. It is simply frustrating because it distracts from any real fun in doing the real science.

Every single scientific organization and government agencies agrees that AWG is correct. The only organization that has a neutral stance is the petroleum engineers. Why? It doesn't matter. On top of that, every major petroleum product distributor has a website that presents AWG as correct. The Koch brothers paid a scientist, that had doubts, to examine AWG and the conclusion what that it is correct.

And, everything that I have presented here is verifiabley correct. The only response, the one that science deniers continue to present, are meaningless point data or the "the predictions were not precise".

What really frustrates me is exactly as I said, that the denial bullshit takes the fun out of the potential for meaningful conversation of real science. And, I know that they have no intention of engaging in any real science as they repeatedly ignore requests for the simplest demonstration of scientific literacy. I have yet to see any denialist post that presents a reasonable and original scientifically literate analysis.

 

[Redfish]

The bottom line is fairly simple. The body of evidence makes it perfectly clear that global warming has been in place since about 1910. The fact is that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and CO2 has continued to climb and is significantly correlated to the rise in temperature. The reality is that these two facts demonstrate to a scientifically significant level that CO2 increase is responsible for the majority of the warming. Other factors include methane, H2O and other GHG. This is not in dispute. As well, the majority of the natural variability is fully accounted for, including the ocean heating cycles. That 1998 was a record year and that the increase does not present itself as being statistically significant from 1998 to 2013 has no bearing on the long term trend. What is clear is that the trend has, since 1910, demonstrated short periods of decrease and flat spots.

Over the century, the methods for measurement have improved significantly. Ground based measurements of temperature have been improved with quality controlled stations. Measurements have been augmented with satellite measurements. Ocean temperature data that was taken by military and commercial vessels using a bucket and a thermometer are now taken with an array of buoys, 3000 of them. And with all this improvement, no statistically, that is scientifically significant evidence has presented itself to suggest that the global warming trend is not a fact. What has happened is that the science has become more and more refined.

The data and presentation of the data are available at NOAA, USGS, Met, Argo, and NASA. It is available for anyone with a modest interest in analyzing the data themselves. And, given that Excel has a good statistical analysis add on, anyone that can use a computer can examine the data themselves. Any reasonable individual that makes the attempt can know exactly what it means that there is a 95% confidence level that global warming has been caused by rising GHG as a result of human population. And, a 95% confidence level can be expressed intuitively as saying there is a 95% confidence level that you will die or be severely injured from a 30 ft fall. No one gives a crap that there is a 5% chance of not being injured. And, frankly, when it comes to the science of AWG, as with all science, the confidence level is typically understated.

The problem I see with the science deniers is that they are emotionally invested in some political issue or another. The same well worn memes are dragged out, over and over and over again, only to be shot down, and dragged out again. It is simply frustrating because it distracts from any real fun in doing the real science.

Every single scientific organization and government agencies agrees that AWG is correct. The only organization that has a neutral stance is the petroleum engineers. Why? It doesn't matter. On top of that, every major petroleum product distributor has a website that presents AWG as correct. The Koch brothers paid a scientist, that had doubts, to examine AWG and the conclusion what that it is correct.

And, everything that I have presented here is verifiabley correct. The only response, the one that science deniers continue to present, are meaningless point data or the "the predictions were not precise".

What really frustrates me is exactly as I said, that the denial bullshit takes the fun out of the potential for meaningful conversation of real science. And, I know that they have no intention of engaging in any real science as they repeatedly ignore requests for the simplest demonstration of scientific literacy. I have yet to see any denialist post that presents a reasonable and original scientifically literate analysis.

repeating proven lies does not magically turn them into the truth. AGW is a hoax, algore is a fraud, east anglia admitted that they data was falsified.

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere, thats less than half of 1%. it has been relatively the same level for millions of years.

You are a sucker for the left wing lies that are being pushed to take away YOUR freedoms.

 

[Ernie S.]

When you post something worthy of a reasoned reply, you will get a reasoned reply.

In 2007, the AGW cult claimed 100% of arctic ice would be gone by the summer of 2013. There has been a 60% increase and you call that insignificant.

You criticize the math and reasoning skills of others, but cannot construct a cogent sentence.

" cannot construct a cogent sentence" Well, apparently I have because you managed to read and reply. So that would be more made up bullshit on your part.

Yes, I do. I do because it is so obvious to anyone with a high school education that 60% of a historical low is not some grand achievement.

The fact is, that it is simple bs. I know, and you know, what 60% increase of a record minimum doesn't mean shit. That is being generous. The alternative is that you really don't know and are just dumb.

When you want to present something of reasonably scientific relevance to the issue of global warming, your welcome to do so.

But, at this point, I am just annoyed at the constant re-posting of the same ignorant bs.

The fact that you don't like it is your own personal problem.

When you "get" that the AGW cult's predictions are based on a desired result, you will be taken seriously.

As far as posting ignorant bs,, I seem to remember you posting
"your to stupid"

Hint: when you have such a poor command of the language, DON'T call others ignorant.

 

[itfitzme]

While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control (and the left's subservient sheep continue to be willfully ignorant puppets refusing to question anything) - a court in England has now proven that the entire "climate change" issue is a farce.

Al Gore's people - when under oath before a court and facing perjury - were forced to admit that their data and claims in the movie were so false, they submitted 77 pages of correction to the court.

I'm going to repeat that: 77 pages worth of corrections to their movie.

Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.

Couple Al Gore's people being forced to admit all of their lies with under penalty of perjury with the not one, but TWO different rounds of "Climate Gate" and the fact that the left predicted the polar ice caps would be melted by 2013 when in fact they have now expanded by 60% and, well, only an idiot libtard could ignore all of this indisputable concrete evidence in favor of their masters propaganda.

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore?s movie | Monckton

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

Climate Gate News and Video - FOX News Topics - FOXNews.com

This is, among others, the dumbest post ever.

It starts with, "While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control". It begins, from the very first sentence, to demonstrate ignorant, paranoid delusional and undemonstrated bias.

What makes anyone think that Al Gore's presentation has any bearing on the fundamental science? No one except, as I have experience, scientifically illiterate con-tools that think they have found something in "to hide the decline".

The fact of the matter is that anyone with some reasonable scientific literacy and no particular bias gets that the majority of active denialists have no interest in anything but presenting their biased position. If they are unable to admit it is beyond me, I can't read minds.

But it is amazing how, given that they tend towards Libertarian-ism and "freedom", they get all pissed off when I exercise my free speech and opinion that they are scientifically illiterate morons that have a biased predisposition. One would think, given their belief in individual rights and freedom, they would celebrate me calling them ass hats.

Rather, what they demonstrate is their ubiquitous tendency for being abusive assholes as they take the time to actually post a neg rep. What is quite amusing is how easy it is. They simply have no clue that they have no personal emotional control.

But hey, it's just my opinion. Like "While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control" is just your opinion.

 

[itfitzme]

When you post something worthy of a reasoned reply, you will get a reasoned reply.

In 2007, the AGW cult claimed 100% of arctic ice would be gone by the summer of 2013. There has been a 60% increase and you call that insignificant.

You criticize the math and reasoning skills of others, but cannot construct a cogent sentence.

" cannot construct a cogent sentence" Well, apparently I have because you managed to read and reply. So that would be more made up bullshit on your part.

Yes, I do. I do because it is so obvious to anyone with a high school education that 60% of a historical low is not some grand achievement.

The fact is, that it is simple bs. I know, and you know, what 60% increase of a record minimum doesn't mean shit. That is being generous. The alternative is that you really don't know and are just dumb.

When you want to present something of reasonably scientific relevance to the issue of global warming, your welcome to do so.

But, at this point, I am just annoyed at the constant re-posting of the same ignorant bs.

The fact that you don't like it is your own personal problem.

When you "get" that the AGW cult's predictions are based on a desired result, you will be taken seriously.

As fare as posting ignorant bs,, I seem to remember you posting
"your to stupid"

Hint: when you have such a poor command of the language, DON'T call others ignorant.

Hey, you can have all the opinions you want. But, yes yuor an igronant ass hat and my comnamd of the laugnage is at lsaet as good as yuors. My knowledge of science and mathematics is far greater than yours, to a 95% level of confidence.

I really just don't give a shit about my typos.

I am srue taht tehy msut dirve your aanl retnetive aohssle ntus.

Yeah, YOUR TO SUTPID.

 

[Ernie S.]

The point is that anyone stupid enough to say "they have expanded by 60%" and think it means something is, well, not worth reading. He obviously doesn't recognize the most obvious thing.

I can only hazard to guess that when I say square root of two, the value doesn't just pop to mind for you, does it?

Does this look like nothing to you, smart alec?

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for September 13, 2013 was 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). The orange line shows the 1981 to 2010 median extent for that day. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole.

Yes, the white part is smaller that the orange line. So, that is comparatively not huge. To be Huge, it would have to be close to or more than the maximum extent. It isnt even at average.

And the reason you used "smart alec" is because you felt the sense that I'm smart and even funny. You should get a clue from that.

Another one who thinks he's smart....

You may be of above average intelligence in your private life, but I assure you, most people who discuss political and scientific issues on line are far above average intelligence.

I assure you. You are left of center on the USMB bell curve.

 

[itfitzme]

The bottom line is fairly simple. The body of evidence makes it perfectly clear that global warming has been in place since about 1910. The fact is that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and CO2 has continued to climb and is significantly correlated to the rise in temperature. The reality is that these two facts demonstrate to a scientifically significant level that CO2 increase is responsible for the majority of the warming. Other factors include methane, H2O and other GHG. This is not in dispute. As well, the majority of the natural variability is fully accounted for, including the ocean heating cycles. That 1998 was a record year and that the increase does not present itself as being statistically significant from 1998 to 2013 has no bearing on the long term trend. What is clear is that the trend has, since 1910, demonstrated short periods of decrease and flat spots.

Over the century, the methods for measurement have improved significantly. Ground based measurements of temperature have been improved with quality controlled stations. Measurements have been augmented with satellite measurements. Ocean temperature data that was taken by military and commercial vessels using a bucket and a thermometer are now taken with an array of buoys, 3000 of them. And with all this improvement, no statistically, that is scientifically significant evidence has presented itself to suggest that the global warming trend is not a fact. What has happened is that the science has become more and more refined.

The data and presentation of the data are available at NOAA, USGS, Met, Argo, and NASA. It is available for anyone with a modest interest in analyzing the data themselves. And, given that Excel has a good statistical analysis add on, anyone that can use a computer can examine the data themselves. Any reasonable individual that makes the attempt can know exactly what it means that there is a 95% confidence level that global warming has been caused by rising GHG as a result of human population. And, a 95% confidence level can be expressed intuitively as saying there is a 95% confidence level that you will die or be severely injured from a 30 ft fall. No one gives a crap that there is a 5% chance of not being injured. And, frankly, when it comes to the science of AWG, as with all science, the confidence level is typically understated.

The problem I see with the science deniers is that they are emotionally invested in some political issue or another. The same well worn memes are dragged out, over and over and over again, only to be shot down, and dragged out again. It is simply frustrating because it distracts from any real fun in doing the real science.

Every single scientific organization and government agencies agrees that AWG is correct. The only organization that has a neutral stance is the petroleum engineers. Why? It doesn't matter. On top of that, every major petroleum product distributor has a website that presents AWG as correct. The Koch brothers paid a scientist, that had doubts, to examine AWG and the conclusion what that it is correct.

And, everything that I have presented here is verifiabley correct. The only response, the one that science deniers continue to present, are meaningless point data or the "the predictions were not precise".

What really frustrates me is exactly as I said, that the denial bullshit takes the fun out of the potential for meaningful conversation of real science. And, I know that they have no intention of engaging in any real science as they repeatedly ignore requests for the simplest demonstration of scientific literacy. I have yet to see any denialist post that presents a reasonable and original scientifically literate analysis.

repeating proven lies does not magically turn them into the truth. AGW is a hoax, algore is a fraud, east anglia admitted that they data was falsified.

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere, thats less than half of 1%. it has been relatively the same level for millions of years.

You are a sucker for the left wing lies that are being pushed to take away YOUR freedoms.

Perfect. Repeating the ignorant lies that AWG is not a fact just demonstrates your scientific illiteracy and willingness to buy into emotional based arguments of the right wing pundits that make millions of dollars off of your sorry ass.

But, hey, anytime you want to demonstrate some fundamentals of scientific literacy, it will be great to have a real conversation.

How about we put a relatively small amount of arsenic or radioactive iodine in your drink?

How about you seal off your automobile of all air vents, park it in the sun, put some dry ice in the back seat, and then get in with a thermometer. Have your friend do the same without the dry ice. Then you can prove that CO2 isn't a GHG.

The problem is, the science is demonstrable as factual and you can do it at home. The body of evidence is so overwhelming that you cannot come close to demonstrating any significant error in it. And your belief that "hide the decline" means what you want to mean demonstrates that you have no familiarity with actual science.

I just don't know how else to tell you. The facts don't have any meaning to you as the sun doesn't shine where your head is shoved. So there is no loss in pointing out that your an arrogant and ignorant asshole that cannot and will not demonstrate the kind of scientific literacy that it takes to grasp the science.

 

[Ernie S.]

" cannot construct a cogent sentence" Well, apparently I have because you managed to read and reply. So that would be more made up bullshit on your part.

Yes, I do. I do because it is so obvious to anyone with a high school education that 60% of a historical low is not some grand achievement.

The fact is, that it is simple bs. I know, and you know, what 60% increase of a record minimum doesn't mean shit. That is being generous. The alternative is that you really don't know and are just dumb.

When you want to present something of reasonably scientific relevance to the issue of global warming, your welcome to do so.

But, at this point, I am just annoyed at the constant re-posting of the same ignorant bs.

The fact that you don't like it is your own personal problem.

When you "get" that the AGW cult's predictions are based on a desired result, you will be taken seriously.

As fare as posting ignorant bs,, I seem to remember you posting
"your to stupid"

Hint: when you have such a poor command of the language, DON'T call others ignorant.

Hey, you can have all the opinions you want. But, yes yuor an igronant ass hat and my comnamd of the laugnage is at lsaet as good as yuors. My knowledge of science and mathematics is far greater than yours, to a 95% level of confidence.

I really just don't give a shit about my typos.

I am srue taht tehy msut dirve your aanl retnetive aohssle ntus.

Yeah, YOUR TO SUTPID.

"your to stupid" is NOT a typo it is an indication of either laziness or lack of the ability to communicate effectively.
Intentional misspellings do not obscure your lack of ability.

As far as out comparative knowledge and intelligence, I'd take the bet any day. If you want to compare degrees, you win. I don't have an MBA.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I find it funny too, none of the alarmists here rebutted the rebuttal of Lord Monckton's rebuttal to Abraham in 2010.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-qq2.pdf

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/response_to_john_abraham.pdf

In it, Lord Monckton completely wipes the floor with Abraham's alarmist conclusions about global warming. This also goes to rebut you Saigon.

The second hand opinions are meaningless except that it might provide some new and usefull idea to follow up on.

The bottom line is that the data and science is available and accomplished by the NOAA, NASA, Argo, USGS, MET, IPCC, Mauna Loa and others.

I have had a chance to download and personally downloaded some pertinent data and run the statistics on it. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the AWG is very likely. The more refined science study demonstrates it as highly likely.

What Watt has to say is meaningless when the foundational science can be done personally with standard statistics packages.

Your bias prevents you from even looking at the links. If you call the IPCC "refined science" you're nuts.

 

[itfitzme]

Does this look like nothing to you, smart alec?

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for September 13, 2013 was 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). The orange line shows the 1981 to 2010 median extent for that day. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole.

Yes, the white part is smaller that the orange line. So, that is comparatively not huge. To be Huge, it would have to be close to or more than the maximum extent. It isnt even at average.

And the reason you used "smart alec" is because you felt the sense that I'm smart and even funny. You should get a clue from that.

Another one who thinks he's smart....

You may be of above average intelligence in your private life, but I assure you, most people who discuss political and scientific issues on line are far above average intelligence.

I assure you. You are left of center on the USMB bell curve.

I note that you didn't address the actual content of the post. Yeah, there is a crime, that I should think I am smart because I have put in the effort and I have been tested objectively and demonstrated such. What I do know, for certain, is I ain't dumb.

When you are standing with your right foot hanging off the edge of the cliff, everyone is left of you. There in lies your problem. People that have an unbiased and centered perspective are to the left of you. I can guarantee that you have used the term "liberal" to describe someone that simply posted a basic question regarding science, and did so because you are so fundamentally biased that you can't tell objective from your ass.

Funny thing, being above in intelligence doesn't guarantee either objectivity or scientific literacy. In fact, it often just guaranteed arrogance as they believe that their expertise in one field translates to an expertise in everything.

 

[TemplarKormac]

While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control (and the left's subservient sheep continue to be willfully ignorant puppets refusing to question anything) - a court in England has now proven that the entire "climate change" issue is a farce.

Al Gore's people - when under oath before a court and facing perjury - were forced to admit that their data and claims in the movie were so false, they submitted 77 pages of correction to the court.

I'm going to repeat that: 77 pages worth of corrections to their movie.

Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.

Couple Al Gore's people being forced to admit all of their lies with under penalty of perjury with the not one, but TWO different rounds of "Climate Gate" and the fact that the left predicted the polar ice caps would be melted by 2013 when in fact they have now expanded by 60% and, well, only an idiot libtard could ignore all of this indisputable concrete evidence in favor of their masters propaganda.

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore?s movie | Monckton

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

Climate Gate News and Video - FOX News Topics - FOXNews.com

This is, among others, the dumbest post ever.

It starts with, "While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control". It begins, from the very first sentence, to demonstrate ignorant, paranoid delusional and undemonstrated bias.

What makes anyone think that Al Gore's presentation has any bearing on the fundamental science? No one except, as I have experience, scientifically illiterate con-tools that think they have found something in "to hide the decline".

The fact of the matter is that anyone with some reasonable scientific literacy and no particular bias gets that the majority of active denialists have no interest in anything but presenting their biased position. If they are unable to admit it is beyond me, I can't read minds.

But it is amazing how, given that they tend towards Libertarian-ism and "freedom", they get all pissed off when I exercise my free speech and opinion that they are scientifically illiterate morons that have a biased predisposition. One would think, given their belief in individual rights and freedom, they would celebrate me calling them ass hats.

Rather, what they demonstrate is their ubiquitous tendency for being abusive assholes as they take the time to actually post a neg rep. What is quite amusing is how easy it is. They simply have no clue that they have no personal emotional control.

But hey, it's just my opinion. Like "While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control" is just your opinion.

Yours is the dumbest rebuttal ever. Hell, I wouldn't even call it that. You can use million dollar words all you want, but your rebuttal is sorely lacking.

 

[itfitzme]

I find it funny too, none of the alarmists here rebutted the rebuttal of Lord Monckton's rebuttal to Abraham in 2010.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-qq2.pdf

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/response_to_john_abraham.pdf

In it, Lord Monckton completely wipes the floor with Abraham's alarmist conclusions about global warming. This also goes to rebut you Saigon.

The second hand opinions are meaningless except that it might provide some new and usefull idea to follow up on.

The bottom line is that the data and science is available and accomplished by the NOAA, NASA, Argo, USGS, MET, IPCC, Mauna Loa and others.

I have had a chance to download and personally downloaded some pertinent data and run the statistics on it. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the AWG is very likely. The more refined science study demonstrates it as highly likely.

What Watt has to say is meaningless when the foundational science can be done personally with standard statistics packages.

Your bias prevents you from even looking at the links. If you call the IPCC "refined science" you're nuts.

I've read Watts materials anymore. I don't read Dr. Sueus books anymore, either.

My efficiency prevents me from looking at the links. My knowledge prevents me from looking at the links. What I look at now is the NOAA, NASA, USGS,

"If you call the IPCC "refined science" you're nuts".

Lets start with this.

Tell me, why is any systematic error in the temperature record for ground based systems meaningless in terms of determining the change in global mean temperature?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, the white part is smaller that the orange line. So, that is comparatively not huge. To be Huge, it would have to be close to or more than the maximum extent. It isnt even at average.

And the reason you used "smart alec" is because you felt the sense that I'm smart and even funny. You should get a clue from that.

Another one who thinks he's smart....

You may be of above average intelligence in your private life, but I assure you, most people who discuss political and scientific issues on line are far above average intelligence.

I assure you. You are left of center on the USMB bell curve.

I note that you didn't address the actual content of the post. Yeah, there is a crime, that I should think I am smart because I have put in the effort and I have been tested objectively and demonstrated such. What I do know, for certain, is I ain't dumb.

When you are standing with your right foot hanging off the edge of the cliff, everyone is left of you. There in lies your problem. People that have an unbiased and centered perspective are to the left of you. I can guarantee that you have used the term "liberal" to describe someone that simply posted a basic question regarding science, and did so because you are so fundamentally biased that you can't tell objective from your ass.

Funny thing, being above in intelligence doesn't guarantee either objectivity or scientific literacy. In fact, it often just guaranteed arrogance as they believe that their expertise in one field translates to an expertise in everything.

You're spouting propaganda and trolling. You guys have a funny view of science too, remember when you blamed global warming for that meteorite that hit Russia? Yeah, mmhmm, argument invalid.

 

[itfitzme]

While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control (and the left's subservient sheep continue to be willfully ignorant puppets refusing to question anything) - a court in England has now proven that the entire "climate change" issue is a farce.

Al Gore's people - when under oath before a court and facing perjury - were forced to admit that their data and claims in the movie were so false, they submitted 77 pages of correction to the court.

I'm going to repeat that: 77 pages worth of corrections to their movie.

Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.

Couple Al Gore's people being forced to admit all of their lies with under penalty of perjury with the not one, but TWO different rounds of "Climate Gate" and the fact that the left predicted the polar ice caps would be melted by 2013 when in fact they have now expanded by 60% and, well, only an idiot libtard could ignore all of this indisputable concrete evidence in favor of their masters propaganda.

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore?s movie | Monckton

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

Climate Gate News and Video - FOX News Topics - FOXNews.com

This is, among others, the dumbest post ever.

It starts with, "While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control". It begins, from the very first sentence, to demonstrate ignorant, paranoid delusional and undemonstrated bias.

What makes anyone think that Al Gore's presentation has any bearing on the fundamental science? No one except, as I have experience, scientifically illiterate con-tools that think they have found something in "to hide the decline".

The fact of the matter is that anyone with some reasonable scientific literacy and no particular bias gets that the majority of active denialists have no interest in anything but presenting their biased position. If they are unable to admit it is beyond me, I can't read minds.

But it is amazing how, given that they tend towards Libertarian-ism and "freedom", they get all pissed off when I exercise my free speech and opinion that they are scientifically illiterate morons that have a biased predisposition. One would think, given their belief in individual rights and freedom, they would celebrate me calling them ass hats.

Rather, what they demonstrate is their ubiquitous tendency for being abusive assholes as they take the time to actually post a neg rep. What is quite amusing is how easy it is. They simply have no clue that they have no personal emotional control.

But hey, it's just my opinion. Like "While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control" is just your opinion.

Yours is the dumbest rebuttal ever. Hell, I wouldn't even call it that. You can use million dollar words all you want, but your rebuttal is sorely lacking.

You can call it what you want, but the case remains that you have nothing useful to add.

The measure isn't in your useless opinion, it is in the number of details you respond with. And a three sentence reply, just demonstrates your ignorance.

 

[itfitzme]

What is really fun is how easy these ass hats are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The second hand opinions are meaningless except that it might provide some new and usefull idea to follow up on.

The bottom line is that the data and science is available and accomplished by the NOAA, NASA, Argo, USGS, MET, IPCC, Mauna Loa and others.

I have had a chance to download and personally downloaded some pertinent data and run the statistics on it. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the AWG is very likely. The more refined science study demonstrates it as highly likely.

What Watt has to say is meaningless when the foundational science can be done personally with standard statistics packages.

Your bias prevents you from even looking at the links. If you call the IPCC "refined science" you're nuts.

I've read Watts materials anymore. I don't read Dr. Sueus books anymore, either.

My efficiency prevents me from looking at the links. My knowledge prevents me from looking at the links. What I look at now is the NOAA, NASA, USGS,

"If you call the IPCC "refined science" you're nuts".

Lets start with this.

Tell me, why is any systematic error in the temperature record for ground based systems meaningless in terms of determining the change in global mean temperature?

Well, I don't see how you continue to use those stations, as old as they are. Their age may have something to do with the reported rise in global mean temperature. Given that that weather equipment is high maintenance, the temperature shelters and their white reflective coats are old and decayed. That can lead to more of the Sun's heat being let in, and that in turn can cause the reading to read higher than normal. But I digress.

Why has the IPCC been caught omitting less than desirable findings from it's reports? Why are there so many flaws in it's report? How come in some cases it even resorts to manufacturing it's own evidence? Climategate alone should discredit their standing.

IPCC Lead Author Reports Flaws in Asserted 97-Percent Consensus | Heartlander Magazine

Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online

The Climate Crisis Hoax - Forbes

 

[TemplarKormac]

What is really fun is how easy these ass hats are.

What's so funny is how you thought I had run away. You're meat.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is, among others, the dumbest post ever.

It starts with, "While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control". It begins, from the very first sentence, to demonstrate ignorant, paranoid delusional and undemonstrated bias.

What makes anyone think that Al Gore's presentation has any bearing on the fundamental science? No one except, as I have experience, scientifically illiterate con-tools that think they have found something in "to hide the decline".

The fact of the matter is that anyone with some reasonable scientific literacy and no particular bias gets that the majority of active denialists have no interest in anything but presenting their biased position. If they are unable to admit it is beyond me, I can't read minds.

But it is amazing how, given that they tend towards Libertarian-ism and "freedom", they get all pissed off when I exercise my free speech and opinion that they are scientifically illiterate morons that have a biased predisposition. One would think, given their belief in individual rights and freedom, they would celebrate me calling them ass hats.

Rather, what they demonstrate is their ubiquitous tendency for being abusive assholes as they take the time to actually post a neg rep. What is quite amusing is how easy it is. They simply have no clue that they have no personal emotional control.

But hey, it's just my opinion. Like "While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control" is just your opinion.

Yours is the dumbest rebuttal ever. Hell, I wouldn't even call it that. You can use million dollar words all you want, but your rebuttal is sorely lacking.

You can call it what you want, but the case remains that you have nothing useful to add.

The measure isn't in your useless opinion, it is in the number of details you respond with. And a three sentence reply, just demonstrates your ignorance.

I've posted numerous links and graphs, but someone who claims he is "efficient" dares not deign himself to the depths of reality. You are the ignorant one. And remember, you said there WAS NO ICE ON THE ICE CAPS. Clearly a statement made in desperation.