England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[P@triot]

This really illustrates the difference between the fact-based conservatives and the propaganda-based liberals:

Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that "95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic". Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: “And your reference is?” Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering “Your reference? Your reference?” Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.

So the climate scam-artist uses the made up (not to mention tired) 95% stat but when asked to provide a source for his number, he can't but falsely claims "everyone knows it's true".

He then alters that number (after claiming everyone knew it was "true") and makes up a new number of 92% but again cannot back that up with a research source. Fed up with having his feet held to the flame for facts, he sits down flustered. But wait, it gets better:

Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.

When the conservative is asked for his source of information, he cites the exact study, with the exact year, with the exact chapter, and the exact section.

Lord Monckton wins global warming debate at Oxford Union | Watts Up With That?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Really, you really are stupid enough not to get it?

They expanded from not fucking very much to 160% of not fucking very much.

How dense are you?

You MORON's[sic] predicted they would be gone by 2013. They are not only NOT gone - they've actually expanded by an astounding 60%. How do you explain that, stupid?

You Morons has no apostrophe. As long as you're grading others on grammar, i thought you should know that.

In the English language, nouns are capitalized. I is a subject pronoun, and is therefore capitalized when used in a sentence.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Saigon]

It's always baffling to see posters arguing about something that neither side believe.

If rottie visited any climate sceptic site, he would find his 'ideas' about climate ridiculed and shouted down by the people whose side he thinks he is on.

Everyone, and I stress the word everyone, who is interested in climate understands and accepts that the world is experiencing unprecedented climate change, and that human acitivity plays some role in that.

There is simply no rational argument or camp that believes otherwise.

What REAL climate sceptics argue is that climate change is either not terribly damaging to our existance, and/or that human acitivity is not the sole or even the greatest factor behind the change we are seeing.

It would be really nice if sceptics on this site could at least do enough reading to understand what their own "side" is saying.

 

[Saigon]

When the conservative is asked for his source of information, he cites the exact study, with the exact year, with the exact chapter, and the exact section.

Then by all means cite one that claims that everything in the Arctic is fine.

Here is your comment:

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

Back it up.

To get you started, here is a graph showing the pattern of Arctic ice...

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/

 

[TemplarKormac]

When the conservative is asked for his source of information, he cites the exact study, with the exact year, with the exact chapter, and the exact section.

Then by all means cite one that claims that everything in the Arctic is fine.

Here is your comment:

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

Back it up.

To get you started, here is a graph showing the pattern of Arctic ice...

NOAA Arctic Theme Page - A Comprehensive Arctic Resource

Go back and read the my responses, your argument has most likely already been debunked.

 

[Saigon]

TK -

I have looked through the thread, but have not said anything to suggest that the catastrophic fall in ice levels records by the NOAA is not correct.

Small and occasional rises in the quantity of sea ice have only occured within a much greater pattern of collapse, as you well know, I'm sure.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

E tu IPCC?

 

[Vox]

It's always baffling to see posters arguing about something that neither side believe.

If rottie visited any climate sceptic site, he would find his 'ideas' about climate ridiculed and shouted down by the people whose side he thinks he is on.

Everyone, and I stress the word everyone, who is interested in climate understands and accepts that the world is experiencing unprecedented climate change, and that human acitivity plays some role in that.

There is simply no rational argument or camp that believes otherwise.

What REAL climate sceptics argue is that climate change is either not terribly damaging to our existance, and/or that human acitivity is not the sole or even the greatest factor behind the change we are seeing.

It would be really nice if sceptics on this site could at least do enough reading to understand what their own "side" is saying.

would it be a revelation to you that there is no such thing as climate" change" since climate is not a STATIC thing, it is ever-changing complex of processes which are in constant motion or CHANGE

as to the degree of change - the hysteria of "unprecedented climate change" is not substantiated by any arguments, except emotion and "everybody knows" . I wouldn't even ridicule the ignorance of the word combination "world climate" as there is also no such essence - there are numerous different climate zones in the world, therefore different climates

 

[Saigon]

Vox-

would it be a revelation to you that there is no such thing as climate" change" since climate is not a STATIC thing, it is ever-changing complex of processes which are in constant motion or CHANGE

That would not be a revelation - that would be basic common knowledge.

I can list SIXTY scientific bodies who have suggested that the climate change is both manmade and unprecedented - not one agrees with you.

 

[itfitzme]

But the polar ice caps aren't "nothing", stupid. They not only exist, they have expanded by 60%...

How dumb are you exactly?

Really, you really are stupid enough not to get it?

They expanded from not fucking very much to 160% of not fucking very much.

How dense are you?

lmfao.

And you criticized someone for their math?

Simple.

You have an ice cap of 1 square mile.

It increases by 60%.

You now have an ice cap of 1.6 square miles.

What is it that you don't get?

You can pretend to be ignorant all you want, you still haven't done the math as specified. It's funny how con-tools like you want to stake claim to artificial authority and feign ignorance. There are two interpretations. Either you really are stupid or you are just pretending to be stupid. Which do you consider better.

The reality is that 60% of not shit is still not shit.

So either you failed at basic math, or you are just pretending to be a moron.

Take the time and think about it. Maybe it will come to you.

 

[itfitzme]

Vox-

would it be a revelation to you that there is no such thing as climate" change" since climate is not a STATIC thing, it is ever-changing complex of processes which are in constant motion or CHANGE

That would not be a revelation - that would be basic common knowledge.

I can list SIXTY scientific bodies who have suggested that the climate change is both manmade and unprecedented - not one agrees with you.

It is the feigned ignorance ploy. "Oh, I don't know what you mean by 'climate change'. Climate always changes." You can hear him now, pretending to be stupid when he was ten.

 

[Moonglow]

Somebody had better tell the dinosaurs that climate change is a farce.

 

[itfitzme]

This really illustrates the difference between the fact-based conservatives and the propaganda-based liberals:

Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that "95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic". Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: “And your reference is?” Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering “Your reference? Your reference?” Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.

So the climate scam-artist uses the made up (not to mention tired) 95% stat but when asked to provide a source for his number, he can't but falsely claims "everyone knows it's true".

He then alters that number (after claiming everyone knew it was "true") and makes up a new number of 92% but again cannot back that up with a research source. Fed up with having his feet held to the flame for facts, he sits down flustered. But wait, it gets better:

Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.

When the conservative is asked for his source of information, he cites the exact study, with the exact year, with the exact chapter, and the exact section.

Lord Monckton wins global warming debate at Oxford Union | Watts Up With That?

Well, that is pure overgeneralized bs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

The entire global warming/climate change issue is nothing but part of a political agenda.
The goal is to increase taxes on business and to punish the US.
Note how no one is breathing a word at China. That country is responsible for probably half the world's filthy air.

 

[itfitzme]

When the conservative is asked for his source of information, he cites the exact study, with the exact year, with the exact chapter, and the exact section.

Then by all means cite one that claims that everything in the Arctic is fine.

Here is your comment:

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

Back it up.

To get you started, here is a graph showing the pattern of Arctic ice...

NOAA Arctic Theme Page - A Comprehensive Arctic Resource

Go back and read the my responses, your argument has most likely already been debunked.

And when called to site a reference, none is given. Instead, like a typical uneducated moron, you have nothing.

 

[Vox]

Vox-

would it be a revelation to you that there is no such thing as climate" change" since climate is not a STATIC thing, it is ever-changing complex of processes which are in constant motion or CHANGE

That would not be a revelation - that would be basic common knowledge.

I can list SIXTY scientific bodies who have suggested that the climate change is both manmade and unprecedented - not one agrees with you.

so why are you all jumping up about a standard natural basic process?
it is neither manmade, nor unprecedented.

 

[Vox]

The entire global warming/climate change issue is nothing but part of a political agenda.
The goal is to increase taxes on business and to punish the US.
Note how no one is breathing a word at China. That country is responsible for probably half the world's filthy air.

Of course, it is.

Plus, as I have said before - it might be a stretch to conspiracy, but I suspect that all this lying brouhaha is about desensitization of the public opinion to the need and constant watch of environmental protection ( which happened) in order to bypass any of the real measures controlling the pollution.
And that will benefit the main pollutants who happen to be dimocraps donors as well.

 

[itfitzme]

Vox-

would it be a revelation to you that there is no such thing as climate" change" since climate is not a STATIC thing, it is ever-changing complex of processes which are in constant motion or CHANGE

That would not be a revelation - that would be basic common knowledge.

I can list SIXTY scientific bodies who have suggested that the climate change is both manmade and unprecedented - not one agrees with you.

so why are you all jumping up about a standard natural basic process?
it is neither manmade, nor unprecedented.

Prove it is a "standard natural basic process". You can't because it isn't a standard natural process.

And who says anyone is "jumping up"? That's cute, like it's has some sway with the scientific argument about climate change.

 

[Vox]

Vox-



That would not be a revelation - that would be basic common knowledge.

I can list SIXTY scientific bodies who have suggested that the climate change is both manmade and unprecedented - not one agrees with you.

so why are you all jumping up about a standard natural basic process?
it is neither manmade, nor unprecedented.

Prove it is a "standard natural basic process". You can't because it isn't a standard natural process.

And who says anyone is "jumping up"? That's cute, like it's has some sway with the scientific argument about climate change.

the basic scientific principle is - the one who states something out of the range has to prove it, not otherwise.
So far nobody from the hysterical alarmists has proven that changes in climates are manmade. NOBODY.
Until you prove it - piss off, narcissus