England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[Erand7899]

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

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

I will listen to and believe the 97% of climate scientist who say there is global warming and it is being caused by human activity. Believe what you will but the 3% you agree with are probably in error OR bought and paid for by big energy.
The bottom line is that if you and the 3% are wrong it could lead to a global catastrophy. On the other hand, if the 97% are right and we act to clean up our atmosphere what is the worst that will happen? We will get a cleaner environment with cleaner air. Is that so bad?

Perhaps you should actually read and understand what those climate scientists are saying before you jump off the deep end. Ninety Seven Percent agree that climate warming trends over the last century are VERY LIKELY due to human activities. At other times the word MAY is used. Few of them contend that the science is settled on this matter.

BTW, what gives you the impression that scientists who are bought and paid for by government grants are any more honest than those who work for private companies?

As to results, you are wrong again. If the entire world quit emitting greenhouse gasses tomorrow, we wouldn't see any noticable change in existing atmospheric pollution for about a hundred years. If what is already there is causing climate change, it would still cause climate change for a hundred years. You know how likely it is that the emerging world would even agree to reducing their carbon emissions? Let alone, the developed world agreeing to ending emissions all together.

No one, with an iota of common sense, is going to destroy the economy in a futile effort to do the impossible. Well, that does leave out the liberal/socialists.

 

[Meister]

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

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

I will listen to and believe the 97% of climate scientist who say there is global warming and it is being caused by human activity. Believe what you will but the 3% you agree with are probably in error OR bought and paid for by big energy.
The bottom line is that if you and the 3% are wrong it could lead to a global catastrophy. On the other hand, if the 97% are right and we act to clean up our atmosphere what is the worst that will happen? We will get a cleaner environment with cleaner air. Is that so bad?

97% of the IPCC scientists.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

I will listen to and believe the 97% of climate scientist who say there is global warming and it is being caused by human activity. Believe what you will but the 3% you agree with are probably in error OR bought and paid for by big energy.
The bottom line is that if you and the 3% are wrong it could lead to a global catastrophy. On the other hand, if the 97% are right and we act to clean up our atmosphere what is the worst that will happen? We will get a cleaner environment with cleaner air. Is that so bad?

97% of the IPCC scientists.

Most of whom aren't even scientists.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I think you need to google Greenpeace.

Why? Do they have a link to a peer reviewed study or nah?

WTF is the value of a "peer reviewed study" when all of the "peers" are on the same payroll?

the greenpeace guy has no axe to grind, he is not taking money from anyone, he is merely stating his opinion based on a review of the data available.

So thats a no. So why do you believe him again? Whats his credentials?

 

[Meister]

Why? Do they have a link to a peer reviewed study or nah?

WTF is the value of a "peer reviewed study" when all of the "peers" are on the same payroll?

the greenpeace guy has no axe to grind, he is not taking money from anyone, he is merely stating his opinion based on a review of the data available.

So thats a no. So why do you believe him again? Whats his credentials?

Boy....that went right over your head, didn't it?

 

[ClosedCaption]

WTF is the value of a "peer reviewed study" when all of the "peers" are on the same payroll?

the greenpeace guy has no axe to grind, he is not taking money from anyone, he is merely stating his opinion based on a review of the data available.

So thats a no. So why do you believe him again? Whats his credentials?

Boy....that went right over your head, didn't it?

So you dont know. Back to Redfish...Why again do you believe this guy? I'm sure he has an impressive resume, right?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Patrick Moore:

Mr. Moore drew headlines for disputing the environmental movement’s doomsday scenario, depicting climate change over the past century as “minor warming” and arguing that “there is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause.”

Read more: Former Greenpeace insider Patrick Moore who questions climate change says he can stand the heat - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Oh now I see. He's one of the people who say "Its not going to be that bad." But doesnt deny GW is happening.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You have a vivid imagination. Obviously you've been smoking something.

Really?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/343386-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months.html

I started another thread? Oh my, how shameful!

So I was absolutely correct in what I posted.
Maybe that's why all you could come up with is "you've been smoking something."

But you know what, I want to apologize for the condescending insults my posts have contained toward you.

I don't know you from Adam. You might be a good guy who just happens to disagree with me. That doesn't rate insults. I'm sorry. I'll do my very best to do a lot better in the future.

 

[Meister]

So thats a no. So why do you believe him again? Whats his credentials?

Boy....that went right over your head, didn't it?

So you dont know. Back to Redfish...Why again do you believe this guy? I'm sure he has an impressive resume, right?

 

[Edgetho]

Patrick Moore:

Mr. Moore drew headlines for disputing the environmental movement’s doomsday scenario, depicting climate change over the past century as “minor warming” and arguing that “there is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause.”

Read more: Former Greenpeace insider Patrick Moore who questions climate change says he can stand the heat - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Oh now I see. He's one of the people who say "Its not going to be that bad." But doesnt deny GW is happening.

For the sake of argument, let's say GW is happening. It isn't, but let's say it is just to avoid the lies from the left.

What percentage of it is due to human activity and give me a viable link to back it up.

Anybody?

I'll ask the question of anybody..... What percentage of GW is due to human activity?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Patrick Moore:

Mr. Moore drew headlines for disputing the environmental movement’s doomsday scenario, depicting climate change over the past century as “minor warming” and arguing that “there is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause.”

Read more: Former Greenpeace insider Patrick Moore who questions climate change says he can stand the heat - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Oh now I see. He's one of the people who say "Its not going to be that bad." But doesnt deny GW is happening.

For that sake of argument, let's say GW is happening. It isn't, but let's say it is just to avoid the lies from the left.

What percentage of it is due to human activity and give me a viable link to back it up.

Anybody?

I'll ask the question of anybody..... What percentage of GW is due to human activity?

I disagree with your assessment that GW is not happening, but I think your question about "how much of it is caused by human activity" is a decent enough question. But if you reject the data that points very strongly to GW, then why would you accept the data that strongly points to human activity contributing to it?

I think it is clear that if you reject the scientific data (which you already confirm) then there is no way to answer the question in a way that would hold any influence over you. So in that respect, it's a bit of a dishonest question isn't it?

Maybe it would be more honest for you to say, "tell me why you believe human activity is contributing to GW so I can do my best to gun down your supporting arguments."

 

[Edgetho]

Patrick Moore:



Oh now I see. He's one of the people who say "Its not going to be that bad." But doesnt deny GW is happening.

For that sake of argument, let's say GW is happening. It isn't, but let's say it is just to avoid the lies from the left.

What percentage of it is due to human activity and give me a viable link to back it up.

Anybody?

I'll ask the question of anybody..... What percentage of GW is due to human activity?

I disagree with your assessment that GW is not happening, but I think your question about "how much of it is caused by human activity" is a decent enough question. But if you reject the data that points very strongly to GW, then why would you accept the data that strongly points to human activity contributing to it?

I think it is clear that if you reject the scientific data (which you already confirm) then there is no way to answer the question in a way that would hold any influence over you. So in that respect, it's a bit of a dishonest question isn't it?

Maybe it would be more honest for you to say, "tell me why you believe human activity is contributing to GW so I can do my best to gun down your supporting arguments."

Give me a number and a link.

1%

5%

10%

1/10th of 1%

99%

How much of GW is attributable to human activity.

Spare me the Junior High Debate Team rhetoric.

Give me a number and a verifiable link.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats like asking how long is a piece of string. There is no answer for that question. Even if the answer was 0%, 2% or 100% it still wouldnt have any change on whether AGW is real or not.

Because I'm sure that once edge doesnt get an answer he's going to go "AHA! PROOF AGW ISNT REAL" without explaining how he makes such a speculative leap

 

[Edgetho]

Do you ignorant fucks on the left think that, maybe... Just maybe the Earth is warming a little bit because we just emerged from a "Little Age" in just over an eye blink ago, geologically speaking?

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you ignorant fucks even bother to think at all?

Maybe there is Global Warming. Maybe it's because compared to a FUCKING ICE AGE we think it's warmer. Maybe human ARE contributing to GW.

Maybe pollution of the air, rivers, streams and oceans of the world are having an adverse effect on our environment and everything in it.

But before I'd let stupid motherfuckers like leftist scum have any more control over us, I'd rather see us implode in a ball of fire.

You people just simply lie too much. In fact, it's about all you're capable of doing.

I hate liars

 

[Edgetho]

Thats like asking how long is a piece of string. There is no answer for that question. Even if the answer was 0%, 2% or 100% it still wouldnt have any change on whether AGW is real or not.

Because I'm sure that once edge doesnt get an answer he's going to go "AHA! PROOF AGW ISNT REAL" without explaining how he makes such a speculative leap

You really do have a paper asshole, don't you?

If you have no clue how much GW is caused by human activity, then you can have no idea whether there is any GW at all.

Blow it out your ass, jerkwad

 

[nodoginnafight]

For that sake of argument, let's say GW is happening. It isn't, but let's say it is just to avoid the lies from the left.

What percentage of it is due to human activity and give me a viable link to back it up.

Anybody?

I'll ask the question of anybody..... What percentage of GW is due to human activity?

I disagree with your assessment that GW is not happening, but I think your question about "how much of it is caused by human activity" is a decent enough question. But if you reject the data that points very strongly to GW, then why would you accept the data that strongly points to human activity contributing to it?

I think it is clear that if you reject the scientific data (which you already confirm) then there is no way to answer the question in a way that would hold any influence over you. So in that respect, it's a bit of a dishonest question isn't it?

Maybe it would be more honest for you to say, "tell me why you believe human activity is contributing to GW so I can do my best to gun down your supporting arguments."

Give me a number and a link.

1%

5%

10%

1/10th of 1%

99%

How much of GW is attributable to human activity.

Spare me the Junior High Debate Team rhetoric.

Give me a number and a verifiable link.

Answer my question - if you have already confirmed that you reject scientific data - WHY are you asking for more?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do you ignorant fucks on the left think that, maybe... Just maybe the Earth is warming a little bit because we just emerged from a "Little Age" in just over an eye blink ago, geologically speaking?

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you ignorant fucks even bother to think at all?

Maybe there is Global Warming. Maybe it's because compared to a FUCKING ICE AGE we think it's warmer. Maybe human ARE contributing to GW.

Maybe pollution of the air, rivers, streams and oceans of the world are having an adverse effect on our environment and everything in it.

But before I'd let stupid motherfuckers like leftist scum have any more control over us, I'd rather see us implode in a ball of fire.

You people just simply lie too much. In fact, it's about all you're capable of doing.

I hate liars

 

[Edgetho]

12 year-olds....

 

[Edgetho]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jgT6qvywfpY]Great balls of fire! jerry lee lewis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Pogo]

Do you ignorant fucks on the left think that, maybe... Just maybe the Earth is warming a little bit because we just emerged from a "Little Age" in just over an eye blink ago, geologically speaking?

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you ignorant fucks even bother to think at all?

Maybe there is Global Warming. Maybe it's because compared to a FUCKING ICE AGE we think it's warmer. Maybe human ARE contributing to GW.

Maybe pollution of the air, rivers, streams and oceans of the world are having an adverse effect on our environment and everything in it.

But before I'd let stupid motherfuckers like leftist scum have any more control over us, I'd rather see us implode in a ball of fire.

You people just simply lie too much. In fact, it's about all you're capable of doing.

I hate liars

It's always revealing when one's argument depends entirely on rhetorical diaper rash peppered with a rash of "maybe"s. Obviously whether we affect the climate or not is irrelevant, and the real point here is emotional meltdown on "leftist scum motherfuckers" and the horrifying possibility that said motherfuckers are correct.

Because clearly, ensuring one's own ego dominates on a message board is far more important than melting glaciers or driving shellfish into extinction. Way more.

Thanks for that. Makes it simple.