England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[Ernie S.]

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.

Harrumph. Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering and a Master's in Business Administration qualifies YOU to speak on climate science?
My background in Science is at least as strong as yours. I am likely as well read on climate as you. The difference being, I read both sides of the argument. I don't deny that for the last 40 years or so, the trend has been upward. My informed opinion is that man is responsible for little, if any of that change.

Oh! You completely missed my left side of the bell curve statement. I thought you were a statistics whiz.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey ifitz? Where'd your lying ass go? Didn't like my last post, did you? Care to rebut me?

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

That is perhaps the most arrogant statement ever made at USMB.

 

[itfitzme]

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?

That is perhaps the most arrogant statement ever made at USMB.

It isn't arrogance when it is true. And as it is true, then I get to be as fucking arrogant as I like. What is the problem, it makes you feel bad? Oh, did I hurt your feelings? You want me to buy you candy, flowers, and tell you how pretty you are?

And the more you post, the clearer it is that you haven't got shit. I should be arrogant. You should grow a pair.

And, I see you still haven't demonstrated anything with regard to the temperature record. Faced with a direct and specific question that you can leverage to show that you actually know what you are talking about, you choke and decide to go with the emotional bullshit.

Figures. Guess your off the list of potential intelligent respondents.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

Harrumph. Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering and a Master's in Business Administration qualifies YOU to speak on climate science?
My background in Science is at least as strong as yours. I am likely as well read on climate as you. The difference being, I read both sides of the argument. I don't deny that for the last 40 years or so, the trend has been upward. My informed opinion is that man is responsible for little, if any of that change.

Oh! You completely missed my left side of the bell curve statement. I thought you were a statistics whiz.

Then you won't have any problem having an actual conversation that includes science basics. And, if it's so much as what you say, then you should be pretty damned tired of the diatribe that passes for posts on the forum.

The difference can be seen in examining posts by the likes of Abraham3, which include actual science.

Well, your opinion that man isn't responsible isn't worth the bits that posted it.

What is relevant is that CO2 correlates statistically significant with temp and that CO2 is demonstrated as a GHG. If you so good at the science, tell me, have you downloaded the data and run a regression? What did you get?

 

[itfitzme]

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.

Dude, I've been busy.

That you say what you say just demonstrates you are an asshat.

I'll post intelligently when you decide to post intellilgently.

Otherwise, you reap what you sew.

 

[itfitzme]

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

So you can't tell why the systematic error is meaningless.

And you are wrong. You don't need to go any further as you don't consider the record to be correct. That is as far as you can go.

 

[P@triot]

My GOD you are just incredibly stupid, aren't you?

The prediction was made in 2007, IIRC. 6 years later, there is 60% more ice. 29% increase this year alone!

Don't you just love how this asshat says "60% of nothing is nothing"? Well sure. Yes, that is true. Now what does that have to do with this discussion?

The polar ice-caps were not "nothing". They existed and they grew 60% at a time they were supposed to completely melt.

Come on libtards - give us another "predicition"

I do know an ignorant con-tool when I see one because they use the word "libtard".

I don't make predictions. I really don't care what was predicted. How does a prediction, failed or otherwise, have any bearing on the actual data?

What I do care about is the actual data and what the actual data says. How does a prediction, failed or otherwise, have any bearing on the actual data?

Now, if you want to start from the beginning, from basics of statistics, we can go over them and build a solid understanding.

But, so far, all I see is that your vocabulary is limited to.

"stupid"
"asshat"
"libtards"

I predict, that is about as far as you will go. What you won't do is any real math, statistics, and science.

Prove me wrong, what is the formula for covariance and why is the square used instead of the absolute value?

Anything? Do you have anything?

Do I have anything? I have the polar ice-caps expanding by an astounding 60% while your "formula" stated that they would have melted completely in that time.

Game. Set. Match

 

[P@triot]

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.

This coming from the high school drop-out who has actually posted the phrase "No, dude, your to stupid to grasp the obvious" on THREE occasions now

 

[P@triot]

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?

That is perhaps the most arrogant statement ever made at USMB.

It isn't arrogance when it is true. And as it is true, then I get to be as fucking arrogant as I like. What is the problem, it makes you feel bad? Oh, did I hurt your feelings? You want me to buy you candy, flowers, and tell you how pretty you are?

And the more you post, the clearer it is that you haven't got shit. I should be arrogant. You should grow a pair.

And, I see you still haven't demonstrated anything with regard to the temperature record. Faced with a direct and specific question that you can leverage to show that you actually know what you are talking about, you choke and decide to go with the emotional bullshit.

Figures. Guess your off the list of potential intelligent respondents.

You mean you get to be as IGNORANT as you like. What kind of fuck'n asshole says their "knowledge prevents them from examining" more information?!?

Oh wait - this kind: a high school drop-out who has actually posted the phrase "No, dude, your to stupid to grasp the obvious" on THREE occasions now

 

[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.

Dude, I've been busy.

That you say what you say just demonstrates you are an asshat.

I'll post intelligently when you decide to post intellilgently.

Otherwise, you reap what you sew.

You've been busy alright. Busy bullshitting me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

So you can't tell why the systematic error is meaningless.

And you are wrong. You don't need to go any further as you don't consider the record to be correct. That is as far as you can go.

You're out of gas hotshot. You're going to tell me how I'm wrong or you're going to be negged and put on my ignore list. Those are the only options you have at this point. I can go all night if need be.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

That is perhaps the most arrogant statement ever made at USMB.

It isn't arrogance when it is true. And as it is true, then I get to be as fucking arrogant as I like. What is the problem, it makes you feel bad? Oh, did I hurt your feelings? You want me to buy you candy, flowers, and tell you how pretty you are?

And the more you post, the clearer it is that you haven't got shit. I should be arrogant. You should grow a pair.

And, I see you still haven't demonstrated anything with regard to the temperature record. Faced with a direct and specific question that you can leverage to show that you actually know what you are talking about, you choke and decide to go with the emotional bullshit.

Figures. Guess your off the list of potential intelligent respondents.

The statement: "My knowledge prevents me from looking at the links." is so unbelievably arrogant. You assume you know everything worth knowing and seem to be saying that any evidence of a conflicting position is somehow beneath you.
Of course you buy the AGW crap! You refuse to read anything that doesn't support it.

And you DARE to cross me off your list of potential intelligent respondents?

Really How fucked up can you get?

You criticize me for not responding to your questions???? Fuck off, asshole! I'm done with you!

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Harrumph. Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering and a Master's in Business Administration qualifies YOU to speak on climate science?
My background in Science is at least as strong as yours. I am likely as well read on climate as you. The difference being, I read both sides of the argument. I don't deny that for the last 40 years or so, the trend has been upward. My informed opinion is that man is responsible for little, if any of that change.

Oh! You completely missed my left side of the bell curve statement. I thought you were a statistics whiz.

Then you won't have any problem having an actual conversation that includes science basics. And, if it's so much as what you say, then you should be pretty damned tired of the diatribe that passes for posts on the forum.

The difference can be seen in examining posts by the likes of Abraham3, which include actual science.

Well, your opinion that man isn't responsible isn't worth the bits that posted it.

What is relevant is that CO2 correlates statistically significant with temp and that CO2 is demonstrated as a GHG. If you so good at the science, tell me, have you downloaded the data and run a regression? What did you get?

Would that be the raw data sets that have disappeared or the "corrected" data?

I have no more reason to assume the data released is any more credible than you are.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Harrumph. Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering and a Master's in Business Administration qualifies YOU to speak on climate science?
My background in Science is at least as strong as yours. I am likely as well read on climate as you. The difference being, I read both sides of the argument. I don't deny that for the last 40 years or so, the trend has been upward. My informed opinion is that man is responsible for little, if any of that change.

Oh! You completely missed my left side of the bell curve statement. I thought you were a statistics whiz.

Then you won't have any problem having an actual conversation that includes science basics. And, if it's so much as what you say, then you should be pretty damned tired of the diatribe that passes for posts on the forum.

The difference can be seen in examining posts by the likes of Abraham3, which include actual science.

Well, your opinion that man isn't responsible isn't worth the bits that posted it.

What is relevant is that CO2 correlates statistically significant with temp and that CO2 is demonstrated as a GHG. If you so good at the science, tell me, have you downloaded the data and run a regression? What did you get?

Would that be the raw data sets that have disappeared or the "corrected" data?

I have no more reason to assume the data released is any more credible than you are.

I've got a BA and a BS, neither of which are in sciences but it doesn't take a fucking Einstein to figure out: quit polluting the air we breathe, start planting some fucking trees instead of cutting them all down, and quit fucking assuming we have another planet to go to if we fuck this one up.

 

[westwall]

Then you won't have any problem having an actual conversation that includes science basics. And, if it's so much as what you say, then you should be pretty damned tired of the diatribe that passes for posts on the forum.

The difference can be seen in examining posts by the likes of Abraham3, which include actual science.

Well, your opinion that man isn't responsible isn't worth the bits that posted it.

What is relevant is that CO2 correlates statistically significant with temp and that CO2 is demonstrated as a GHG. If you so good at the science, tell me, have you downloaded the data and run a regression? What did you get?

Would that be the raw data sets that have disappeared or the "corrected" data?

I have no more reason to assume the data released is any more credible than you are.

I've got a BA and a BS, neither of which are in sciences but it doesn't take a fucking Einstein to figure out: quit polluting the air we breathe, start planting some fucking trees instead of cutting them all down, and quit fucking assuming we have another planet to go to if we fuck this one up.

I DO have a PhD in geology and not one of the sceptics refutes those points. How about instead of squandering countless trillions of dollars to try and lower the global temperature by one degree we instead spend that money doing exactly what you say.

Hmm, how about that instead.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Would that be the raw data sets that have disappeared or the "corrected" data?

I have no more reason to assume the data released is any more credible than you are.

I've got a BA and a BS, neither of which are in sciences but it doesn't take a fucking Einstein to figure out: quit polluting the air we breathe, start planting some fucking trees instead of cutting them all down, and quit fucking assuming we have another planet to go to if we fuck this one up.

I DO have a PhD in geology and not one of the sceptics refutes those points. How about instead of squandering countless trillions of dollars to try and lower the global temperature by one degree we instead spend that money doing exactly what you say.

Hmm, how about that instead.

Indeed. Perhaps if we start spending money on those things, the global temperature would go down.

 

[P@triot]

Then you won't have any problem having an actual conversation that includes science basics. And, if it's so much as what you say, then you should be pretty damned tired of the diatribe that passes for posts on the forum.

The difference can be seen in examining posts by the likes of Abraham3, which include actual science.

Well, your opinion that man isn't responsible isn't worth the bits that posted it.

What is relevant is that CO2 correlates statistically significant with temp and that CO2 is demonstrated as a GHG. If you so good at the science, tell me, have you downloaded the data and run a regression? What did you get?

Would that be the raw data sets that have disappeared or the "corrected" data?

I have no more reason to assume the data released is any more credible than you are.

I've got a BA and a BS, neither of which are in sciences but it doesn't take a fucking Einstein to figure out: quit polluting the air we breathe, start planting some fucking trees instead of cutting them all down, and quit fucking assuming we have another planet to go to if we fuck this one up.

You mean a liberal Californian wants to plant trees and make love, not war?

Shocking! Who saw that coming...?

 

[Ernie S.]

Would that be the raw data sets that have disappeared or the "corrected" data?

I have no more reason to assume the data released is any more credible than you are.

I've got a BA and a BS, neither of which are in sciences but it doesn't take a fucking Einstein to figure out: quit polluting the air we breathe, start planting some fucking trees instead of cutting them all down, and quit fucking assuming we have another planet to go to if we fuck this one up.

I DO have a PhD in geology and not one of the sceptics refutes those points. How about instead of squandering countless trillions of dollars to try and lower the global temperature by one degree we instead spend that money doing exactly what you say.

Hmm, how about that instead.

Mostly because it doesn't involve a transfer of wealth or imaginary carbon credits to enrich algore.
If there's no money, votes or power in a solution, it's right wing wacko denier rhetoric and must be discredited.

 

[Ernie S.]

I've got a BA and a BS, neither of which are in sciences but it doesn't take a fucking Einstein to figure out: quit polluting the air we breathe, start planting some fucking trees instead of cutting them all down, and quit fucking assuming we have another planet to go to if we fuck this one up.

I DO have a PhD in geology and not one of the sceptics refutes those points. How about instead of squandering countless trillions of dollars to try and lower the global temperature by one degree we instead spend that money doing exactly what you say.

Hmm, how about that instead.

Indeed. Perhaps if we start spending money on those things, the global temperature would go down.

Ahh but should we strive to lower global temperature?

What is the ideal global temperature?