Where's my Global Warming!

[Abraham3]

Those would be unsubstantiated assertions. You don't show someone to be lying with unsubstantiated assertions.

Those would be unsubstantiated assertions.

Wrong again, dumbass.

Those aren't "unsubstantiated assertions". It is a well known fact that Al Gore is a habitual liar, but I know in your small & feeble liberal mind, you refuse to believe and accept anything that says that he lied about Global Warming, and so you go on like the good little kool-aid drinking gullible idiot promoting the lies over and over.

As the saying goes, "Just saying it doesn't make it so". I'm not the one making extreme claims without the first hint of evidence. If he's a "habitual liar" you should have no problem quoting demonstrable lies from the man. Until you do, all we have are your unsubstantiated assertions which, in regard to this sort of disagreement, are of significantly less value than would be a hot crock of shit.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Those would be unsubstantiated assertions. You don't show someone to be lying with unsubstantiated assertions.

Those would be unsubstantiated assertions.

Wrong again, dumbass.

Those aren't "unsubstantiated assertions". It is a well known fact that Al Gore is a habitual liar, but I know in your small & feeble liberal mind, you refuse to believe and accept anything that says that he lied about Global Warming, and so you go on like the good little kool-aid drinking gullible idiot promoting the lies over and over.

As the saying goes, "Just saying it doesn't make it so". I'm not the one making extreme claims without the first hint of evidence. If he's a "habitual liar" you should have no problem quoting demonstrable lies from the man. Until you do, all we have are your unsubstantiated assertions which, in regard to this sort of disagreement, are of significantly less value than would be a hot crock of shit.

all we have are your unsubstantiated assertions which, in regard to this sort of disagreement, are of significantly less value than would be a hot crock of shit

No, all we have is your proven loyalty and gullibility in Al Gore who has spewed lies over and over about global warming and yet you stand by and defend the liar.

What the corrupt Al Gore's lies about global warming amount to is significanty less value than a hot crock of shit.

Hey shit-for-brains,

You want proof, here's proof, but we both know that you will dispute it all. Because in your mind, Al Gore was never wrong no matter what. You sure are gullible.

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

 

[mamooth]

Wildcard is obsessed with Al Gore. It looks like love.

The Gore Rule was invoked long ago. Whosoever bringeth up Al Gore first forfeits the discussion. There's not a Monckton Rule, but there should be.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wildcard is obsessed with Al Gore. It looks like love.

The Gore Rule was invoked long ago. Whosoever bringeth up Al Gore first forfeits the discussion. There's not a Monckton Rule, but there should be.

Lol, you lose the discussion and then revert to sarcasm.

Typical libtard bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Lord" Monkton? You call on "Lord" Monkton to prove someone else a liar? The same "Lord" Monkton that the British House of Lords finally took the unprecedented steop of coming out and stating that he was not a Lord. The man is a liar and a charlatan, anyone invoking him is the same.

 

[Jroc]

"Lord" Monkton? You call on "Lord" Monkton to prove someone else a liar? The same "Lord" Monkton that the British House of Lords finally took the unprecedented steop of coming out and stating that he was not a Lord. The man is a liar and a charlatan, anyone invoking him is the same.

You choose Al Gore?

 

[Old Rocks]

Those would be unsubstantiated assertions. You don't show someone to be lying with unsubstantiated assertions.

Those would be unsubstantiated assertions.

Wrong again, dumbass.

Those aren't "unsubstantiated assertions". It is a well known fact that Al Gore is a habitual liar, but I know in your small & feeble liberal mind, you refuse to believe and accept anything that says that he lied about Global Warming, and so you go on like the good little kool-aid drinking gullible idiot promoting the lies over and over.

Flap-yap from an ignoramous. Link or be considered a liar.

A letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments - News from Parliament - UK Parliament

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

See, that is how it is done. Monkton is a liar.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Lord" Monkton? You call on "Lord" Monkton to prove someone else a liar? The same "Lord" Monkton that the British House of Lords finally took the unprecedented steop of coming out and stating that he was not a Lord. The man is a liar and a charlatan, anyone invoking him is the same.

You choose Al Gore?

OK, dumb ass, point out the lies concerning AGW in Gore's lectures or movie. With links and backing scientific material.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wildcard is obsessed with Al Gore. It looks like love.

The Gore Rule was invoked long ago. Whosoever bringeth up Al Gore first forfeits the discussion. There's not a Monckton Rule, but there should be.

Lol, you lose the discussion and then revert to sarcasm.

Typical libtard bullshit.

I won't bother to be sarcastic. I will simply tell you flat out, if you are claiming that almost all the scientists in the world are incompetant or in on some vast conspiracy, you are tin hat material. Grow up, learn to accept reality. 'The way things oughta be' is an idiots response to reality. Getting one's view of reality from an obese junkie doesn't say much for your intellect.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Coldest start to March is KC history. As a bonus we got 2 inches of ice & sleet

 

[Roudy]

It happens ever winter. The 'tard brigade starts babbling "It's cold! AGW is a hoax!".

Why? Because they're the 'tard brigade. It's what they do.

We're cooling not warming no matter what the global warmest nutjobs say oh your fellow religionist got stuck on the Ice in Antarctica

The media here has covered up for the climate change expedition that got stuck in ice:

Why have the ABC and Fairfax media, so keen at first to announce this expedition was to measure the extent and effects of global warming, since omitted that fact from their reports after the expedition became ice-bound?

It’s been even worse in the US:

The Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was stranded in the ice while on a climate change research expedition, yet nearly 98 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers failed to mention their mission at all…

In fact, rather than point out the mission was to find evidence of climate change, the networks often referred to the stranded people as “passengers,” “trackers” and even “tourists,” without a word about climate change or global warming…

There was only one news story out of 41 that mentioned climate change. That was CBS “This Morning” Dec. 30. “Despite being frozen at a standstill, the team’s research on climate change and Antarctic wildlife is moving forward,” CBS News Correspondent Don Dahler said.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Now that's ironic.

 

[Jroc]

"Lord" Monkton? You call on "Lord" Monkton to prove someone else a liar? The same "Lord" Monkton that the British House of Lords finally took the unprecedented steop of coming out and stating that he was not a Lord. The man is a liar and a charlatan, anyone invoking him is the same.

You choose Al Gore?

OK, dumb ass, point out the lies concerning AGW in Gore's lectures or movie. With links and backing scientific material.

all of it, Al Gore loves you idiots. He makes lots of money off of you

 

[Roudy]

Prove it.

Not how it works. I've got the whole world on my side. You've got a deranged political blog that has a history of making shit up. You're the one making the extraordinary claim, so you need extraordinary evidence to back it up, not just cherrypicked nonsense crap.

And dont just quote some shill who hopes to get more grant money;

You ought to apologize to scientists for declaring they're in it for the money. I know a few of these guys. On both an intellectual and a moral level, you're not worthy to sniff their jocks. They're honest, fiercely intelligent and independent, while you're a brainless political shill.

You don't understand how the grant system works. Say a scientists gets a million dollar grant. You know how much of that goes into his pocket? Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not a single penny. That's how the law works. All the money is tracked to an insane degree of precision.

You cultists won't care, however. You depend on that particular dishonest conspiracy theory, so you'll keep spouting it, even after you know it's bullshit. It's part of that lack of honesty thing which is common to nearly all denialists.

Follow the money. The socialist are definitely on your side ..."The whole world" not so much

50 Former Astronauts and Scientists Denounce NASA Stance on Global Warming - PolicyMic

Global Warming Hoax: 141 Scientists Sign Letter Sent to UN Secretary-General Questioning Global Warming

That article on NASA was very interesting, thanks.

 

[mamooth]

"STOP DISCUSSING THE SCIENCE! I WANT TO RAGE AT PEOPLE!"-- the denialist mantra.

When a group puts so much effort in deflecting discussions away from the science, as denialists do, that's a sure sign they're engaging in cult pseudoscience.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wildcard is obsessed with Al Gore. It looks like love.

The Gore Rule was invoked long ago. Whosoever bringeth up Al Gore first forfeits the discussion. There's not a Monckton Rule, but there should be.

Lol, you lose the discussion and then revert to sarcasm.

Typical libtard bullshit.

I won't bother to be sarcastic. I will simply tell you flat out, if you are claiming that almost all the scientists in the world are incompetant or in on some vast conspiracy, you are tin hat material. Grow up, learn to accept reality. 'The way things oughta be' is an idiots response to reality. Getting one's view of reality from an obese junkie doesn't say much for your intellect.

Its not conspiracy for the most part, it is group think by a bunch of scientists afraid to break with their perception of what 'everyone knows'. S small percentage of scientists who should know are focused solely on their particular issues and not digging into things that might cost them ability to publish in scientific journals and thus lose tenure.

The scientific establishment has a long history of consensus on things that were regarded as fact but were entirely wrong, like eugenics, Piltdown Man, flogiston, etc. Then there were many theories that were long ridiculed for decades until the evidence simply became over-whelming then finally accepted like Continental drift and LENR.

But people like you do not have the courage to buck the system, and that I cannot explain unless its just that you suffer from over-regard for science.

IT has a long list of limitations and failures.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"STOP DISCUSSING THE SCIENCE! I WANT TO RAGE AT PEOPLE!"-- the denialist mantra.

When a group puts so much effort in deflecting discussions away from the science, as denialists do, that's a sure sign they're engaging in cult pseudoscience.

You mean like this science and forensic evidence?

Climate has ALWAYS changed!
Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years

Last 10,000 years

Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science

NASA GISS ? Adjusting the Adjustments « Climate Audit

As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts – also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthony‘s, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998 – an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansen’s Y2K error.

As CA readers recall, Hansen’s Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007 – a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.

Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Hansen?s NASA GISS ? cooling the past, warming the present | Watts Up With That?

I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.

However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with today’s version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.

Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

?FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations

...


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is.

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'


.....


; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

 

[mamooth]

So you're just reposting the same old debunked list of cherrypicks, distortions and fabrications now.

No point in debunking it all again, since you'd simply repost it all again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you're just reposting the same old debunked list of cherrypicks, distortions and fabrications now.

No point in debunking it all again, since you'd simply repost it all again.

It was never debunked you fucking liar.

 

[mamooth]

It was never debunked you fucking liar.

I could go down the line with the debunkings, yet another time, but I'll just save time, show the first point was debunked, and thus demonstrate you're merely parroting cult propaganda.

Your first bit is "CO2 always follows climate". That strange claim relies on the logical fallacy that the present must act exactly like the past, even if present conditions are wildly different. It's debunked by common sense. If conditions are different now, the outcome will be different. That's been pointed out to you, and you had no response, other than to repost the same debunked nonsense. Same all the way down the line.

And while you may think your cult leaders appreciate the way you've tossed away your integrity for the goals of the cult, they actually consider you to be a UsefulIdiot and hold you in contempt. You'll be left hung out to dry whenever it's convenient for them to do so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It was never debunked you fucking liar.

I could go down the line with the debunkings, yet another time, but I'll just save time, show the first point was debunked, and thus demonstrate you're merely parroting cult propaganda.

Your first bit is "CO2 always follows climate". That strange claim relies on the logical fallacy that the present must act exactly like the past, even if present conditions are wildly different. It's debunked by common sense. If conditions are different now, the outcome will be different. That's been pointed out to you, and you had no response, other than to repost the same debunked nonsense. Same all the way down the line.

That does not debunk anything. The statement is that the historical record shows CO2 lagging behind temperature fluctuations. That does not prove that it will always be this way but it does show that you have to make the case that CO2 is now for the first time we know of actually driving the global temperatures.

And you have failed to anything of the sort.

And while you may think your cult leaders appreciate the way you've tossed away your integrity for the goals of the cult, they actually consider you to be a UsefulIdiot and hold you in contempt. You'll be left hung out to dry whenever it's convenient for them to do so.

There is no cult except in your fevered imagination.