BBC to reduce deniers coverage

[Old Rocks]

Lying fool. Good for the BBC. Show some balls against irresponsible, ignorant lunacy like yours.

PS, evidence in heaping armfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch

Too funny;

The IPCC has no evidence yet you site it like it does... Speaking of lying fools, how is the king of fools?

Once again our burger flipper chimes in. Hey Silly Billy, ever hear of an absorption spectrum?

 

[Old Rocks]

Lying fool. Good for the BBC. Show some balls against irresponsible, ignorant lunacy like yours.

PS, evidence in heaping armfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch

Too funny;

The IPCC has no evidence yet you site it like it does... Speaking of lying fools, how is the king of fools?

When you ask crick about any actual observed, measured evidence that the IPCC has that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, he ignores the supporting AGW over natural variability part of the question and points out that they have plenty of observed measured data...like daily temperature readings...wind gage measurements, rainfall measurements, population figures, etc...but he just can't bring himself to admit that there is no actual data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. They are the most dishonest lot I have ever encountered in all my long years.

And don't you like the goobs who go about posting funny to posts that they are unable to rebut in any fashion? Walking about laughing like a monkey in a tree gibbering mindlessly because they know that they dare not attempt to make a rational comment because there is no rational comment to be made.

Once again, go look up absorption spectrum. Of course, you will not, that would conflict with your willful ignorance.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is why you are brainwashed by the queen, the government and the establishment and Americans are smarter.

So, if we don't agree with you, we're brainwashed. As for a British person being brainwashed by the queen.......

I didn't say that.

I'm saying if you parrot the BBC, if you parrot the CFR or the RIIA, IOW the Anglo-American establishment? Then yeah, chances are, you have been mentally conditioned.

Did he parrot the BBC? Or did he post something from the BBC?

Gosh then since it is FROM the BBC and noted warmist Professor it must be credible since he effectively dialed down the scaremongering over warming trends, which has been supported by dozens of published science papers.

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:"

Enjoy!

D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Two stalled hurricanes in two years. A stalled heat wave that caused record fires in British Columbia, Canada, and another that caused record fires in Scandinavia. Strongly increased Accumulated Cyclone Energy for the last 14 years, and this year is already showing the same. Why should anyone want to publish what the loser deniers are stating? They have already been proven the be the fellow that states there is no storm when the wind outside is knocking down trees, and there is three feet of water in the front yard. There is no reason for the press to bother with known liars if they are not in a position to make decisions affecting the rest of us. And the deniers are known liars.

 

[cnm]

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

You're asking me to vanquish invincible ignorance. That's more impossible than proving a negative.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Orwell tried to warn people that the crazy left wingers will censor opposing views.
Liberals are a threat to freedom and democracy.

Hey, lying bitch, it is not the left wing that is trying to shut down the press. It is the treasonous fat senile old orange clown. Shutting down the press is the first desire of a Fascist. And it is not the left wing that has a leader whose speeches are measured in lies per minute. It is not the left wing that is kissing Putin's ass. You 'Conservatives' are condoning treason, indeed, reveling in it.

Have you got an example of Trump censoring the Press?
A real traitor would do things like give the genocidal maniac Iranian terrorist regime $billions$.... aka Obammy.
Unlike Obama, Trump actually loves America.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb fuck, that was Iran's money that we froze when they took our embassy. Yes, every time the treasonous fat senile old orange clown states 'Fake News', he is trying to censure the press. And, no, Trump does not love American, he loves only Trump.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Dumb fuck, that was Iran's money that we froze when they took our embassy. Yes, every time the treasonous fat senile old orange clown states 'Fake News', he is trying to censure the press. And, no, Trump does not love American, he loves only Trump.

Obammy didn't have to give them anything.
The crazy Iranians fund terrorism.
You are in denial that Obammy was a traitor.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, people like you are traitors, and probably a Russian troll. President Obama never kissed Putin's ass in public as did the treasonous fat senile old orange clown at Helsinki.

 

[cnm]

Obammy didn't have to give them anything.

Obama kept US agreements. By doing so he garnered international cooperation, to the advantage of the US. I prefer Trump's isolationist style which is weakening the influence of the US. Best POTUS evah!

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

No, people like you are traitors, and probably a Russian troll. President Obama never kissed Putin's ass in public as did the treasonous fat senile old orange clown at Helsinki.

 

[cnm]

Putin would never do that to Trump.

 

[SSDD]

Orwell tried to warn people that the crazy left wingers will censor opposing views.
Liberals are a threat to freedom and democracy.

Hey, lying bitch, it is not the left wing that is trying to shut down the press. It is the treasonous fat senile old orange clown. Shutting down the press is the first desire of a Fascist. And it is not the left wing that has a leader whose speeches are measured in lies per minute. It is not the left wing that is kissing Putin's ass. You 'Conservatives' are condoning treason, indeed, reveling in it.

Lots of talk rocks...but neither the facts nor history bear you out...the fact is that the left has a long history of trying to shut down any conversation they can't win...either shouting over those who are pointing out their folly, deliberately lying, or literally closing down conversation by any means possible...want to know how you are talking to a liberal?....they are endlessly accusing their opposition of doing exactly what they have been doing...old fascist trick and you use it endlessly.

 

[SSDD]

Lying fool. Good for the BBC. Show some balls against irresponsible, ignorant lunacy like yours.

PS, evidence in heaping armfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch

Too funny;

The IPCC has no evidence yet you site it like it does... Speaking of lying fools, how is the king of fools?

When you ask crick about any actual observed, measured evidence that the IPCC has that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, he ignores the supporting AGW over natural variability part of the question and points out that they have plenty of observed measured data...like daily temperature readings...wind gage measurements, rainfall measurements, population figures, etc...but he just can't bring himself to admit that there is no actual data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. They are the most dishonest lot I have ever encountered in all my long years.

And don't you like the goobs who go about posting funny to posts that they are unable to rebut in any fashion? Walking about laughing like a monkey in a tree gibbering mindlessly because they know that they dare not attempt to make a rational comment because there is no rational comment to be made.

Once again, go look up absorption spectrum. Of course, you will not, that would conflict with your willful ignorance.

The absorption spectrum proves that IR is absorbed by some gasses...the emission spectrum proves that those gasses don't hold any of that energy but pass it immediately along. There isn't the first piece of observed measured evidence establishing a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Hell rocks..do a bit of research into the IR heating industry...millions of observation hours demonstrating that IR does not warm the air...it warms solid objects. That is the great benefit to IR heating..you aren't wasting money heating the air...you are only heating solid objects being struck by the IR...learn something why don't you?

Bu thanks again for showing what a low bar you have for what constitutes "evidence" of anything and again, how easily you are fooled.

 

[SSDD]

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

You're asking me to vanquish invincible ignorance. That's more impossible than proving a negative.

Nope..I am just asking for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or a single piece of observed measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

That is asking for proof of a positive...now if you asked me to prove that no such evidence exists, then that would be asking me to prove a negative...you can certainly prove me wrong by providing an actual piece of observed measured evidence that fulfills either of my requests. Of course you won't, because no such evidence exists that would answer either request.

 

[SSDD]

No, people like you are traitors, and probably a Russian troll. President Obama never kissed Putin's ass in public as did the treasonous fat senile old orange clown at Helsinki.

Bullshit...I can remember obama bowing to foreign leaders...demonstrating that he felt subservient to them...He practically groveled before the whole world....your memory must be going...maybe you should see your physician about it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lying fool. Good for the BBC. Show some balls against irresponsible, ignorant lunacy like yours.

PS, evidence in heaping armfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch

Too funny;

The IPCC has no evidence yet you site it like it does... Speaking of lying fools, how is the king of fools?

Once again our burger flipper chimes in. Hey Silly Billy, ever hear of an absorption spectrum?

Lying fool. Good for the BBC. Show some balls against irresponsible, ignorant lunacy like yours.

PS, evidence in heaping armfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch

Too funny;

The IPCC has no evidence yet you site it like it does... Speaking of lying fools, how is the king of fools?

When you ask crick about any actual observed, measured evidence that the IPCC has that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, he ignores the supporting AGW over natural variability part of the question and points out that they have plenty of observed measured data...like daily temperature readings...wind gage measurements, rainfall measurements, population figures, etc...but he just can't bring himself to admit that there is no actual data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. They are the most dishonest lot I have ever encountered in all my long years.

And don't you like the goobs who go about posting funny to posts that they are unable to rebut in any fashion? Walking about laughing like a monkey in a tree gibbering mindlessly because they know that they dare not attempt to make a rational comment because there is no rational comment to be made.

Once again, go look up absorption spectrum. Of course, you will not, that would conflict with your willful ignorance.

You really are this ignorant....

Again, you show your total ignorance on the physics...

 

[SSDD]

Lying fool. Good for the BBC. Show some balls against irresponsible, ignorant lunacy like yours.

PS, evidence in heaping armfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch

Too funny;

The IPCC has no evidence yet you site it like it does... Speaking of lying fools, how is the king of fools?

Once again our burger flipper chimes in. Hey Silly Billy, ever hear of an absorption spectrum?

Lying fool. Good for the BBC. Show some balls against irresponsible, ignorant lunacy like yours.

PS, evidence in heaping armfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch

Too funny;

The IPCC has no evidence yet you site it like it does... Speaking of lying fools, how is the king of fools?

When you ask crick about any actual observed, measured evidence that the IPCC has that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, he ignores the supporting AGW over natural variability part of the question and points out that they have plenty of observed measured data...like daily temperature readings...wind gage measurements, rainfall measurements, population figures, etc...but he just can't bring himself to admit that there is no actual data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. They are the most dishonest lot I have ever encountered in all my long years.

And don't you like the goobs who go about posting funny to posts that they are unable to rebut in any fashion? Walking about laughing like a monkey in a tree gibbering mindlessly because they know that they dare not attempt to make a rational comment because there is no rational comment to be made.

Once again, go look up absorption spectrum. Of course, you will not, that would conflict with your willful ignorance.

You really are this ignorant....

Again, you show your total ignorance on the physics...

The poor old guy thinks he can point out the absorption spectrum as evidence to support his claims and completely ignore the emission spectrum which completely decimates his claims. In all the years I have been here, I don't think I have ever heard rocks mention the emission spectrum. Deliberate deception, willful ignorance or just plain old stupid? You tell me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No more BBC platform for climate change deniers? It’d be about time | Richard Black

From time to time the BBC gets itself into an awful mess over climate change. Unnecessarily so, given that it has visited and revisited principles of good coverage, repeatedly arriving at more or less the same conclusions.

Back in 2007, a report for the BBC Trust, then the corporation’s regulator, concluded that the old bipolar world of “the climate change debate” had gone. The working model had to change, as the title put it, From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel : “the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should.” Four years later, the Trust’s review of accuracy and impartiality in science coverage , commissioned from geneticist Professor Steve Jones, reached very similar conclusions.

Both reports were accepted by BBC managers. Both contain much that is common sense. And then there are the editorial guidelines, which are very clear that the guiding principle is “due impartiality”, rather than equal weight.



Everyone is entitled to a point of view but it should be backed by facts to get a plaform..

Good, it is absurd to give them equal time, or any forum at all. We shouldn't do that for flat earthers, either.

 

[SSDD]

No more BBC platform for climate change deniers? It’d be about time | Richard Black

From time to time the BBC gets itself into an awful mess over climate change. Unnecessarily so, given that it has visited and revisited principles of good coverage, repeatedly arriving at more or less the same conclusions.

Back in 2007, a report for the BBC Trust, then the corporation’s regulator, concluded that the old bipolar world of “the climate change debate” had gone. The working model had to change, as the title put it, From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel : “the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should.” Four years later, the Trust’s review of accuracy and impartiality in science coverage , commissioned from geneticist Professor Steve Jones, reached very similar conclusions.

Both reports were accepted by BBC managers. Both contain much that is common sense. And then there are the editorial guidelines, which are very clear that the guiding principle is “due impartiality”, rather than equal weight.



Everyone is entitled to a point of view but it should be backed by facts to get a plaform..

Good, it is absurd to give them equal time, or any forum at all. We shouldn't do that for flat earthers, either.

There is ample evidence that the earth is not flat...there is no evidence, however, that human activities are altering the global climate. Do feel free to prove me wrong by posting some...or don't and meekly accept that I am right.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No more BBC platform for climate change deniers? It’d be about time | Richard Black

From time to time the BBC gets itself into an awful mess over climate change. Unnecessarily so, given that it has visited and revisited principles of good coverage, repeatedly arriving at more or less the same conclusions.

Back in 2007, a report for the BBC Trust, then the corporation’s regulator, concluded that the old bipolar world of “the climate change debate” had gone. The working model had to change, as the title put it, From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel : “the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should.” Four years later, the Trust’s review of accuracy and impartiality in science coverage , commissioned from geneticist Professor Steve Jones, reached very similar conclusions.

Both reports were accepted by BBC managers. Both contain much that is common sense. And then there are the editorial guidelines, which are very clear that the guiding principle is “due impartiality”, rather than equal weight.



Everyone is entitled to a point of view but it should be backed by facts to get a plaform..

Good, it is absurd to give them equal time, or any forum at all. We shouldn't do that for flat earthers, either.

There is ample evidence that the earth is not flat...there is no evidence, however, that human activities are altering the global climate. Do feel free to prove me wrong by posting some...or don't and meekly accept that I am right.

Completely false an embarrassingly absurd, of course. Sorry denier...you are correctly inevitably being sent to the "freak corner", with the Bigfoot hunters and UFOlogists. Enjoy!