England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[P@triot]

 

[P@triot]

The science is overwhelming - "Global Warming" is a scam. History has proven it. Science has proven it. Data has proven it. Facts have proven it.

According to a study by Martin Brandt et al., published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution in May, 36% of the continent of Africa became greener over the 20-year period from 1992 to 2011, while only 11% became “less green.” Interestingly, the researchers found the increased greening was “driven” by higher carbon-dioxide levels and precipitation, and the decreased greening was largely a result of humans cutting down vegetation.

New study about Africa is terrible news for climate-change alarmists

 

[Rustic]

View attachment 127030

...and one hell of a firearm salesman… Best ever!

 

[P@triot]

Boy...this "Global Warming" stuff is a real bitch, eh? It's melting everything.

Greenland just broke the record for the coldest July day ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere at -33C.

Don't worry that it was the coldest day ever recorded in July. Those pesky little facts are nothing compared to the left's ability to refuse to accept reality!

Almost all Greenland’s surface is gaining ice. In fact, says Heller, Greenland has gained a near record amount of ice this year

So odd how everything seems to be gaining ice despite the left-wing narrative that greenhouse gasses are being trapped in the atmosphere - causing "Global Warming".

Delingpole: Record-Breaking Cold in Greenland; Alarmists 'Look. An Arctic Squirrel!'

 

[P@triot]

The indisputable evidence that "Global Warming" is a scam literally piles up to the heavens now. Each one is a bigger bombshell than the previous one. The truth always comes out in the end...

A new peer-reviewed study by scientists and a statistician claims to reveal that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Met Office in the United Kingdom are the result of adjustments made to the datasets after temperatures were recorded, calling into question just how much warming is real and how much is pure fantasy.

That's right...a peer-reviewed study shows that the only "cause" of "Global Warming" are scientists. Scientists who falsify their data to make it appear as though "Global Warming" actually exists.

‘Bombshell’ climate-change study could totally dismantle the claim humans are causing global warming

 

[toobfreak]

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?

Actually, if you have an ice cap of 1 square mile and you increase it by 60%, that would give you an ice cap of approximately 1.27 square miles.

 

[P@triot]

I can understand why the left is so upset about this. The realization that they were so easily and so thoroughly duped.


Cause of Global Warming Discovered: Scientists

 

[P@triot]

Priceless. Absolutely priceless...

Study: Climate scientists 'adjusted' temperatures, accounting for 'nearly all' temperature changes

 

[toobfreak]

DO YOU WANT THE KNOW WHAT THE FATAL FLAW IN ALL OF THE GLOBAL WARMING BULL IS? It is really simple if you look at it this way.

People who promote global warming as a proven science fact do so on the grounds of the available evidence. The problem is the degree of sampling is too small. They are looking at data spread overt a period of years or decades in a system spanning billions of years and with more variables affecting the outcome than you can shake a stick at.

Now, who knows? Maybe the conclusions are indeed right! If so, they were arrived at through entirely accidental and hapless means. Look at it this way:

You observe a bullet fired a mile away going through the woods on a windy day. Your total period of observation spans a distance of about 18 feet. Now you measure back and conclude that assuming a whole set of variables, if you trace the path of the bullet back, it must have come from point A and traced forward, will end up at point B. That is Climate Science.

Problem is that it cannot account for the unknown windage, elevation of the original firing point, changing air currents, rotation of the Earth, incidental collision with trees, branches and leaves, loss of velocity and other things; worse, it has no previous test fires from the same position and conditions to build up any data on repeat occurrence! That is like tossing a pebble out the window and hitting a passing car, then concluding that everytime you toss a pebble out the window it will hit a passing car! You don't know if this was the rule or the exception!

Bottom line, people clinging to the predictions of global warming have their reasons and beliefs, but in absolute terms, no one can say for sure because no one can know all of the variables of climate, just look how far off weather forecasts of a few days can be, nor has anyone ever conducted the experiment before as a baseline comparison for results! So it would be FOOLISH to wreck the world economy on an unknown when you KNOW the outcome of a wrecked world economy-------- the best thing we can do is proceed as best we can, do our best to limit damage without killing the economy and look for technology to come along that is practical and affordable as soon as possible to ween us off the carbonaceous compounds which seem to be bad for the planet.

For all we know, we may be heading into the next mini ice age in which case, we would be looking for every way possible to keep the Earth warm!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mann is going to get his day in court in Canada.

You watch

He's bursting to get in there and show all his Hockey stick data

Any day now

Not to toot my own horn but,

I FUCKING NAILED IT!!!

 

[iceberg]

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?

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?

so - just how big were they before the expansion and then after? 10 years ago?

i mean, you went to school and all - these simple questions should be very simple to answer?

 

[CowboyTed]

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?

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

How dumb are you exactly?

That article has been debunked so many times it is a joke....

That is the graph... The actual graph....

So if you look there is an actual increase from 2012 to 2013.... So this is the deniers proof of it actually increasing...

This is maximum extent... not minimum

Minimum is this:

Even by my pigeon science that number looks like it will be very close to completely zero in 60 -70 years... One warm summer and it could and it will be all water... So 50 years is about right...

 

[peach174]

We who were young in the 70's knew it was a hoax by Gore.
Now there is more than enough proof that everything he has predicted is false.

 

[CowboyTed]

We who were young in the 70's knew it was a hoax by Gore.
Now there is more than enough proof that everything he has predicted is false.

What proof? You have a few mistakes in a single movie made for the masses...

Where is your actual scientific evidence...

 

[toobfreak]

Even by my pigeon science

A phrase aptly chosen. Bullet in the woods, my friend, a bullet in the woods. . . . If we use the data from your chart above, it would suggest that in 120 years, there will be ZERO ice on the planet. Now, just how could the Paris Accord stave off so drastic a decline in so short a period of time??? It also implies that 10,200 years ago, the Earth was completely ice covered pole to pole! FROZEN SOLID. And has been receding ever since. So for the first 3.999 billion years, the Earth was ice covered. The dinosaurs must have used ice skates. 2000 years ago in the time of Christ, according to your chart, a full 1/5th of the Earth was covered in ice. Since none of that is true, then why should we draw any other conclusions from your chart?

Since your chart shows too brief a time period and the slope of the graph MUST have changed prior to that, how can we know the slope in the future? If we knew the true cause, then we could predict an accurate slope, since we don't know the actual slope we don't know the cause. Climate change is a belief, a theory, a RELIGION. Worship at its alter if you choose.

 

[CowboyTed]

Even by my pigeon science

A phrase aptly chosen. Bullet in the woods, my friend, a bullet in the woods. . . . If we use the data from your chart above, it would suggest that in 120 years, there will be ZERO ice on the planet. Now, just how could the Paris Accord stave off so drastic a decline in so short a period of time??? It also implies that 10,200 years ago, the Earth was completely ice covered pole to pole! FROZEN SOLID. And has been receding ever since. So for the first 3.999 billion years, the Earth was ice covered. The dinosaurs must have used ice skates. 2000 years ago in the time of Christ, according to your chart, a full 1/5th of the Earth was covered in ice. Since none of that is true, then why should we draw any other conclusions from your chart?

Since your chart shows too brief a time period and the slope of the graph MUST have changed prior to that, how can we know the slope in the future? If we knew the true cause, then we could predict an accurate slope, since we don't know the actual slope we don't know the cause. Climate change is a belief, a theory, a RELIGION. Worship at its alter if you choose.

I lengthened the graph to answer the idiotic claim of 60% increase in Ice...

But if you want more years... Here you are...

Now this makes it look worse... This is done science... Every serious scientist in the world agrees there is warming, only idiots dispute the warming at all (there is is more scientists who believe the earth is 6000 years old than believe there is no warming.).

So at least retreat to your next line of denial... Cause I have a funny feeling after being embarrassed by this you are suddenly going to admit to warming but it is not man made... My answer is you were too ignorant to know there was warming, the man made thing will go right over your head...

 

[toobfreak]

But if you want more years... Here you are....

Well, Ted, there is warming in some areas, cooling in others. Where there is warming, how much of it if any is actually, genuinely man-made? Significant industrialization has only been going on for about 100 years, before that it was contained in only small pockets of the world. It continued to grow and spread to become worldwide over subsequent years, but not long after it reached its peak output, technological improvements were made to begin scrubbing and cleaning it to reduce its effect.

So in looking at your chart, we ought to see a curved line to reflect that, but we don't see a curved line but a very straight one. According to your chart, sea ice took a SUDDEN AND ABRUPT change in approximately 1921 just a few years after industrialization, and then a PRECIPITOUS fall in approximately 1962 (calculating off your chart), and has followed that trend since.

I took the liberty of extending your chart and projecting off of its data as follows:

If the trend were to follow the steady plot shown until a few years ago, then all sea ice will vanish in about the year 2100, 83 years from now, but the very tip of your chart where the reconstructed data ends and only modern observations remain suggest a change. It is only one datapoint in your chart but projecting off of that, sea ice will not disappear until the year ~3350, 1300 years from now. And that assumes no further improvements.

Add in the Paris Accord, and that would be extended further.

Add in technological improvements, a continued natural shift to cleaner energies as are inevitable, then that would be extended further.

So by your own chart, assuming the ice melt is wholly our fault and we just continue to watch ourselves and keep working on cleaner energy sources, the curve in the plot ought to continue to turn, giving us to at least the year 4600 before ice is gone, and by then, it won't matter as we will have surely beaten the problem by then.

That is based on your own chart and data.

Of course, this also begs to ask, if our meager industries between the years 1880 and 1921 could have started all of this, then surely the world is all too fragile to survive natural events far larger and would have been plunged into a greatly warming state with no sea ice at all after every super-volcano event! And yet the Earth recovered each time. So the question is: does historical data show that the arctic ice melted completely after each super-volcano? If not, then all your data is wrong and the above projections will be even better than I suggested. Better yet, no matter the outcome, if we simply stop contributing, the Earth has shown that it will rebound and right itself. No harm, no foul. No end of the world.

Climate Change Scare? My ass. And Steve Hawking can go suck it.

BTW, your chart is still too small a sampling, going back 1400 years is almost nothing. To do real science, you need to look at the Earth over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. THEN you have the basis to begin drawing better conclusions.

 

[peach174]

We who were young in the 70's knew it was a hoax by Gore.
Now there is more than enough proof that everything he has predicted is false.

What proof? You have a few mistakes in a single movie made for the masses...

Where is your actual scientific evidence...

Three Facts Prove Climate Alarm Is a Scam

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Daily Mail Online

 

[peach174]

The indisputable evidence that "Global Warming" is a scam literally piles up to the heavens now. Each one is a bigger bombshell than the previous one. The truth always comes out in the end...

A new peer-reviewed study by scientists and a statistician claims to reveal that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Met Office in the United Kingdom are the result of adjustments made to the datasets after temperatures were recorded, calling into question just how much warming is real and how much is pure fantasy.

That's right...a peer-reviewed study shows that the only "cause" of "Global Warming" are scientists. Scientists who falsify their data to make it appear as though "Global Warming" actually exists.

‘Bombshell’ climate-change study could totally dismantle the claim humans are causing global warming

Slight correction.
It was political scientists who doctored graph charts and claimed global warming.
They get paid by the government grants for research around the world in the college universities.
The real scientists were always saying they needed more data.

 

[CowboyTed]

But if you want more years... Here you are....

Well, Ted, there is warming in some areas, cooling in others. Where there is warming, how much of it if any is actually, genuinely man-made? Significant industrialization has only been going on for about 100 years, before that it was contained in only small pockets of the world. It continued to grow and spread to become worldwide over subsequent years, but not long after it reached its peak output, technological improvements were made to begin scrubbing and cleaning it to reduce its effect.

So in looking at your chart, we ought to see a curved line to reflect that, but we don't see a curved line but a very straight one. According to your chart, sea ice took a SUDDEN AND ABRUPT change in approximately 1921 just a few years after industrialization, and then a PRECIPITOUS fall in approximately 1962 (calculating off your chart), and has followed that trend since.

I took the liberty of extending your chart and projecting off of its data as follows:


View attachment 138317

If the trend were to follow the steady plot shown until a few years ago, then all sea ice will vanish in about the year 2100, 83 years from now, but the very tip of your chart where the reconstructed data ends and only modern observations remain suggest a change. It is only one datapoint in your chart but projecting off of that, sea ice will not disappear until the year ~3350, 1300 years from now. And that assumes no further improvements.

Add in the Paris Accord, and that would be extended further.

Add in technological improvements, a continued natural shift to cleaner energies as are inevitable, then that would be extended further.

So by your own chart, assuming the ice melt is wholly our fault and we just continue to watch ourselves and keep working on cleaner energy sources, the curve in the plot ought to continue to turn, giving us to at least the year 4600 before ice is gone, and by then, it won't matter as we will have surely beaten the problem by then.

That is based on your own chart and data.

Of course, this also begs to ask, if our meager industries between the years 1880 and 1921 could have started all of this, then surely the world is all too fragile to survive natural events far larger and would have been plunged into a greatly warming state with no sea ice at all after every super-volcano event! And yet the Earth recovered each time. So the question is: does historical data show that the arctic ice melted completely after each super-volcano? If not, then all your data is wrong and the above projections will be even better than I suggested. Better yet, no matter the outcome, if we simply stop contributing, the Earth has shown that it will rebound and right itself. No harm, no foul. No end of the world.

Climate Change Scare? My ass. And Steve Hawking can go suck it.

BTW, your chart is still too small a sampling, going back 1400 years is almost nothing. To do real science, you need to look at the Earth over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. THEN you have the basis to begin drawing better conclusions.

How much actual science did you do for your whole science experiment... Lets just say I like most of the world will rely on experts and you with your few lines drawn of edges of graphs are not one....

You have no actual evidence for your second line... It is just shit you are making up... I will just draw a line over here to make crap up... Where is your actual evidence....

Also you are using cleaner tech to justify your new line while saying that new tech is not needed to be give aid... We just had a one trillion dollar war last decade which was a huge subsidy for Oil and Coal kills 22,000 americans a year but pay no damages.... How are these subsidies allowed for fossil fuels...

This is the type of graph we should trying to emulate, we have done it before, the challenge is just higher this time.