England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[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.

 

[konradv]

All of this based on flawed claims of climactic destruction due to human CO2. Al Gore must have gotten deep into your head, Seawytch.

Dueling "floor wipes" do nothing to explain where the increase in CO2 is coming from, if not from man. It also doesn't explain where the extra energy is going that the added CO2 absorbs, if not to warm the earth. You can cite all the politically slanted "proofs" you want, but I'd like someone to answers the questions posed by the two points I cited. Remember, those that know the subject, talk about it. Those that don't, bring up Gore.

 

[itfitzme]

England Court PROVES... 09-27-2013 12:51 PM Rottweiler Dumbest...post...EVER. You're a fuck'n moron. Considering the polar ice caps are NOT "nothing" a 60% increase is huge

No, dude, your to stupid to grasp the obvious.

a 60% increase isn't "huge". It isn't even double. It's is a little more than 1/2. 2x is not even as big as 3x. 3x would be huge. 100x would be huge. 1/2 is 0.5. 60% is 0.60. That is a fraction, 3/5ths, to be precise.

Your a number illiterate idiot that thinks that it is "huge" because the number "60" seems so big.

The reality is that a small percentage increase of 0.60 over a really low minimum is a really small amount.

It is only "huge" because you have no clue of proportions or scaling.

This guy has grammar like a first grader and he wants to bark at everybody about "education" and being "stupid". Asshole, you're a typical left-wing uneducated parasite. You smoked pot through high school and dropped out before graduating. Now you want to mooch off of the U.S. government while you hit message boards pretending to be highly educated while using phrases like "your to stupid"

It's "YOU'RE TOO stupid" asshat. And you are [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION]

Your is to show possession you ignorant libtard Dumbocrat (like "your posts display astounding lack of proper grammar"). You're is a conjunction for YOU ARE (as in you're the one who is TOO stupid).

To is expressing motion or identification (like "you need to go back to school"). Too is a higher degree or in addition (as in "you're the one who is actually too stupid).

Since I have to teach you basic fuck'n grammar, it's no wonder you can't grasp basic facts regarding the farce known as "climate change".

It msut jsut dirve an aanl retnetive assohle lkie you nuts wehn the sepllimg is all fcuekd up.

I don't concern myself much with the spelling and typos here. Nor have I made any claims to having an English degree. What I do know is math, sciwence, and psych. Rather than deal with the point, that 60% of small is still small, you jack off your own ego by distracting from that point.

What you haven't done is demonstrated any facts behind climate change.

At this point, it is the same old well worn bullshit of claims that the data is wrong, someone is lying, (how convenient of a rationalization where anythint can be true then), and cherry picked data.

By all means, if you want to have a discusion of actual science, it would be refreshimg.

 

[itfitzme]

All of this based on flawed claims of climactic destruction due to human CO2. Al Gore must have gotten deep into your head, Seawytch.

Dueling "floor wipes" do nothing to explain where the increase in CO2 is coming from, if not from man. It also doesn't explain where the extra energy is going that the added CO2 absorbs, if not to warm the earth. You can cite all the politically slanted "proofs" you want, but I'd like someone to answers the questions posed by the two points I cited. Remember, those that know the subject, talk about it. Those that don't, bring up Gore.

And claim the scientists lie and the datamis flawed. These are so very convenient. Just claim that their mommy lied and they can keep on believing i Santa.

What is most convincing is how all they have in the end are neg reps because they have nothing to back up the bs.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck which and who is right or wrong. All I am interested in are the facts of reality and a better recognition of the abnormal psychology of the psychosis they display.

It is just damn strange how the mentally disturbed tend to flock to conservative positions. I still haven't determined why.

If there are lefty nuts, they seem fee and far between. I have seen, on occasion, an over reaching statement made by the left side. Generally, though, they will back off if something is pointed out to the contrary.

One issue is assessing the obnectivity is that it is difficult to recognize when someone is right for the wrong reason.

On the other hand, the aggredious errors repeated by right wingnuts are ubiquitous.

 

[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.

 

[francoHFW]

And the new ice is just that- melts fast unlike old thick ice that's been there forever. WARMING HAS SLOWED, BUT LATELY IT'S THE OCEANS WARMING- THEY HAVE 3000 BUOYS TO PROVE IT...

 

[P@triot]

Peak Oil Is Alive and Well, and Costing the Earth

The Age of Hard-to-Get Oil

But screw the planet as long as you can keep driving your gas guzzler, right?

Wytchey - sweetie - you need to read your articles before posting them...

"Peak oil, of course, doesn’t mean that the world is running out of oil any time soon. There is a vast amount of oil left."

Peak Oil Is Alive and Well, and Costing the Earth

Yes, in the most expensive, hard to reach and potentially devastating ways possible. It's not a way forward, Puppy. If we don't switch to a cleaner, renewable, appliance based and not resource based energy system soon, it will be too late.

And you know something SW, if someone developed an actual clean, renewable energy that A.) worked, and, B.) was affordable, I don't know of a single human in the world that wouldn't use it.

That's what you people don't understand. The market will naturally drive all of this when someone develops a product that works. Right now, you guys are thumping your chest over "solutions" that cost $170,000 each and produce as much energy in a week as a AAA battery. There is a word for that - it's called stupid.

 

[P@triot]

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

Here is your comment:

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

Still no study, year or chapter from rottie to back up his claim.

And people say he isn't a left-wing troll?!

He's a left wing troll? Saigon, Rottie is as far from left wing as the universe is wide. And then next you'll tell me you're a right wing moderate. Spare me.

You know me TK - I am one radical "leftie"!

 

[itfitzme]

Wytchey - sweetie - you need to read your articles before posting them...

"Peak oil, of course, doesn’t mean that the world is running out of oil any time soon. There is a vast amount of oil left."

Peak Oil Is Alive and Well, and Costing the Earth

Yes, in the most expensive, hard to reach and potentially devastating ways possible. It's not a way forward, Puppy. If we don't switch to a cleaner, renewable, appliance based and not resource based energy system soon, it will be too late.

And you know something SW, if someone developed an actual clean, renewable energy that A.) worked, and, B.) was affordable, I don't know of a single human in the world that wouldn't use it.

That's what you people don't understand. The market will naturally drive all of this when someone develops a product that works. Right now, you guys are thumping your chest over "solutions" that cost $170,000 each and produce as much energy in a week as a AAA battery. There is a word for that - it's called stupid.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors -

Small Nuclear Power Reactors.

First "Small Modular" Nuclear Reactors Planned for Tennessee

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Department of Energy

 

[P@triot]

All of this based on flawed claims of climactic destruction due to human CO2. Al Gore must have gotten deep into your head, Seawytch.

Dueling "floor wipes" do nothing to explain where the increase in CO2 is coming from, if not from man. It also doesn't explain where the extra energy is going that the added CO2 absorbs, if not to warm the earth. You can cite all the politically slanted "proofs" you want, but I'd like someone to answers the questions posed by the two points I cited. Remember, those that know the subject, talk about it. Those that don't, bring up Gore.

You just brought up Gore - so where does that leave you?

Here's the bottom line: Al Gore saw the rousing success that the Y2K farce was, knew that libtards are subservient parasites who would never question any bullshit he spoon fed them, and a decade later finds himself a multi-billionaire.

If only I lacked integrity! God the army of mindless dupes on the left you can exploit for ungodly wealth (all while convincing those same idiots that rich people are to blame for their problems )

 

[P@triot]

Yes, in the most expensive, hard to reach and potentially devastating ways possible. It's not a way forward, Puppy. If we don't switch to a cleaner, renewable, appliance based and not resource based energy system soon, it will be too late.

And you know something SW, if someone developed an actual clean, renewable energy that A.) worked, and, B.) was affordable, I don't know of a single human in the world that wouldn't use it.

That's what you people don't understand. The market will naturally drive all of this when someone develops a product that works. Right now, you guys are thumping your chest over "solutions" that cost $170,000 each and produce as much energy in a week as a AAA battery. There is a word for that - it's called stupid.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors -

Small Nuclear Power Reactors.

First "Small Modular" Nuclear Reactors Planned for Tennessee

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Department of Energy

Is there a point somewhere in all of your links?

We all know nuclear power delivers the biggest bang for you buck (the complete opposite of wind turbines and solar panels which shatter the bank and take a week to create the same energy as a AAA battery).

 

[itfitzme]

And you know something SW, if someone developed an actual clean, renewable energy that A.) worked, and, B.) was affordable, I don't know of a single human in the world that wouldn't use it.

That's what you people don't understand. The market will naturally drive all of this when someone develops a product that works. Right now, you guys are thumping your chest over "solutions" that cost $170,000 each and produce as much energy in a week as a AAA battery. There is a word for that - it's called stupid.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors -

Small Nuclear Power Reactors.

First "Small Modular" Nuclear Reactors Planned for Tennessee

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Department of Energy

Is there a point somewhere in all of your links?

We all know nuclear power delivers the biggest bang for you buck (the complete opposite of wind turbines and solar panels which shatter the bank and take a week to create the same energy as a AAA battery).

If you are so stupid that you can't get a point, then there is no help for you. Do you need everyone to hold your hand and show you were the potty is? Or have you grown up intellectually and emotionally?

 

[Ernie S.]

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 polar ice caps would be melted by 2013 when in fact they have now expanded by 60%"

Well, there you go. Proof that you are an idiot that can't do math, percentages, and fractions. A 60% increase of nothing is nothing.

Why should anyone consider anything else you have to say as meaningful, given your incapable of the simplest things?

Can't you at least try? You did go to school like the rest of us, didn't you?

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!

 

[P@triot]

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 polar ice caps would be melted by 2013 when in fact they have now expanded by 60%"

Well, there you go. Proof that you are an idiot that can't do math, percentages, and fractions. A 60% increase of nothing is nothing.

Why should anyone consider anything else you have to say as meaningful, given your incapable of the simplest things?

Can't you at least try? You did go to school like the rest of us, didn't you?

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"

 

[Ernie S.]

All of this based on flawed claims of climactic destruction due to human CO2. Al Gore must have gotten deep into your head, Seawytch.

Dueling "floor wipes" do nothing to explain where the increase in CO2 is coming from, if not from man. It also doesn't explain where the extra energy is going that the added CO2 absorbs, if not to warm the earth. You can cite all the politically slanted "proofs" you want, but I'd like someone to answers the questions posed by the two points I cited. Remember, those that know the subject, talk about it. Those that don't, bring up Gore.

And claim the scientists lie and the datamis flawed. These are so very convenient. Just claim that their mommy lied and they can keep on believing i Santa.

What is most convincing is how all they have in the end are neg reps because they have nothing to back up the bs.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck which and who is right or wrong. All I am interested in are the facts of reality and a better recognition of the abnormal psychology of the psychosis they display.

It is just damn strange how the mentally disturbed tend to flock to conservative positions. I still haven't determined why.

If there are lefty nuts, they seem fee and far between. I have seen, on occasion, an over reaching statement made by the left side. Generally, though, they will back off if something is pointed out to the contrary.

One issue is assessing the obnectivity is that it is difficult to recognize when someone is right for the wrong reason.

On the other hand, the aggredious errors repeated by right wingnuts are ubiquitous.

Ironic post of the day!

 

[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

" the polar ice caps would be melted by 2013 when in fact they have now expanded by 60%"

Well, there you go. Proof that you are an idiot that can't do math, percentages, and fractions. A 60% increase of nothing is nothing.

Why should anyone consider anything else you have to say as meaningful, given your incapable of the simplest things?

Can't you at least try? You did go to school like the rest of us, didn't you?

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!

Okay, I will spell it out for you. The point of the "60% more ice" is to make a claim that there is no significant ice loss. After all, look how it is 60% more.

Go get the data for the ice extent and volume.

Notice the extent in the last image? See how it is lower in 2012 than in any year before? See how it is higher in 2013, but it is still lower than in 1980?

This is how math works.

Let A be 100. Now, reduce A by 90% to 10 and call that B. Now, we add 60% of B to B to get B*1.6 = 16. 16 is still less than A, even though it is 60% higher than B.

What part of this singularly basic point do you not get? What are you trying to make more complicated about it that you simply can't say, "yeah, sure, 60% of not much is not much."

I've been patiently learning about people for decades. And I've learned that arrogant asses are arrogant asses, regardless of whether you approach them nicely or not.

You want to prove your not an arrogant ass, then say, "yeah, sure, I get what your saying, 60% of not shit still is not shit." Then, if you think you have some point that can be made beyond the "60% more" comment, make it.

Don't be a moron. We all have been watching this raging debate for years. We all know what the "point" is. Don't pretend to be ignorant of the point and implication.

If you can demonstrate that there has been no AWG, short of making dumb points like "it's 60% more" or "the data is a lie", I am all ears.

 

[itfitzme]

Dueling "floor wipes" do nothing to explain where the increase in CO2 is coming from, if not from man. It also doesn't explain where the extra energy is going that the added CO2 absorbs, if not to warm the earth. You can cite all the politically slanted "proofs" you want, but I'd like someone to answers the questions posed by the two points I cited. Remember, those that know the subject, talk about it. Those that don't, bring up Gore.

And claim the scientists lie and the datamis flawed. These are so very convenient. Just claim that their mommy lied and they can keep on believing i Santa.

What is most convincing is how all they have in the end are neg reps because they have nothing to back up the bs.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck which and who is right or wrong. All I am interested in are the facts of reality and a better recognition of the abnormal psychology of the psychosis they display.

It is just damn strange how the mentally disturbed tend to flock to conservative positions. I still haven't determined why.

If there are lefty nuts, they seem few and far between. I have seen, on occasion, an over reaching statement made by the left side. Generally, though, they will back off if something is pointed out to the contrary.

One issue is assessing the obnectivity is that it is difficult to recognize when someone is right for the wrong reason.

On the other hand, the aggredious errors repeated by right wingnuts are ubiquitous.

Ironic post of the day!

You are an ignorant moron that can't back up his vague comments with anything intelligent. What, five words is all you can hold in mind at a time?

 

[itfitzme]

" the polar ice caps would be melted by 2013 when in fact they have now expanded by 60%"

Well, there you go. Proof that you are an idiot that can't do math, percentages, and fractions. A 60% increase of nothing is nothing.

Why should anyone consider anything else you have to say as meaningful, given your incapable of the simplest things?

Can't you at least try? You did go to school like the rest of us, didn't you?

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?

 

[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.

 

[itfitzme]

Dueling "floor wipes" do nothing to explain where the increase in CO2 is coming from, if not from man. It also doesn't explain where the extra energy is going that the added CO2 absorbs, if not to warm the earth. You can cite all the politically slanted "proofs" you want, but I'd like someone to answers the questions posed by the two points I cited. Remember, those that know the subject, talk about it. Those that don't, bring up Gore.

And claim the scientists lie and the datamis flawed. These are so very convenient. Just claim that their mommy lied and they can keep on believing i Santa.

What is most convincing is how all they have in the end are neg reps because they have nothing to back up the bs.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck which and who is right or wrong. All I am interested in are the facts of reality and a better recognition of the abnormal psychology of the psychosis they display.

It is just damn strange how the mentally disturbed tend to flock to conservative positions. I still haven't determined why.

If there are lefty nuts, they seem fee and far between. I have seen, on occasion, an over reaching statement made by the left side. Generally, though, they will back off if something is pointed out to the contrary.

One issue is assessing the objectivity is that it is difficult to recognize when someone is right for the wrong reason.

On the other hand, the aggredious errors repeated by right wingnuts are ubiquitous.

Ironic post of the day!

Do you have a clue why this article;
And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online

which shows the 2012 and 2013 ice is meaningless from a scientific perspective?

If you aren't a disingenuous and scientifically illiterate asswipe, you can explain why.

It really isn't hard. No reasonably scientifically literate individual would report things in this manner. Do you know why?