England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[itfitzme]

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

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

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

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

The basic scientific principle is the null hypothesis. Do you know what the null hypothesis test is?

The fundamental fact is that climate change has been demonstrated.

You do have to prove your claim because climate change has been demonstrated. It is demonstrated by simple correlation between the GHG and temperatures. It is demonstrated by doing a simple energy budget. It has been further refined and demonstrated by accounting for all measurable factors in accurate climate models.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated nothing. No science education. No mathematical capability. No physics understanding. No understanding of statistics.

You have nothing but bullshit "I don't like it", whiney little girl posts.

You can say, "It's not proven" all you like, it doesn't change the facts or the fact that you have to capacity for evaluating science.

 

[Peterf]

Antarctic ice has been growing record high FOR YEARS.

and now when the Arctic one INCREASED (instead of alarmist "it is disappearing") more than half - they are going to play the game "oh, more than half, it is not much, if that would be three times, than it is much, but 60% I don't know, that's nothing, because my masters said so in the talking points memo today"

Still going on about how you can't do fractions

I got an idea. You give me your paycheck, and I'll give you back over half.

I thought Itfitzme that having dug yourself into a deep hole you had finally seen sense and gone off to another thread wearing dark glasses so that no one would recognise you.

As it is you who has said that 60% is as good as nothing it is, I feel, up to you to give Vox 60% of YOUR week's pay check. Of course 60% of $131.50 is indeed quite a small sum.

 

[Vox]

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

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

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

The basic scientific principle is the null hypothesis. Do you know what the null hypothesis test is?

The fundamental fact is that climate change has been demonstrated.

You do have to prove your claim because climate change has been demonstrated. It is demonstrated by simple correlation between the GHG and temperatures. It is demonstrated by doing a simple energy budget. It has been further refined and demonstrated by accounting for all measurable factors in accurate climate models.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated nothing. No science education. No mathematical capability. No physics understanding. No understanding of statistics.

You have nothing but bullshit "I don't like it", whiney little girl posts.

You can say, "It's not proven" all you like, it doesn't change the facts or the fact that you have to capacity for evaluating science.

seems like YOU don't know what a null hypothesis is.

Until YOU and your cohort prove that a TRACE gas in the atmosphere is causing the climate to change, there is nothing to discuss.

So far NOBODY has proven it.

Hysterical speculations are not PROOFS.

Why all of your CO2 warmers are specifically concentrated on the trace gas is understandable - the dire need to connect something not related to human activity to that activity in order to punish that activity and make money

 

[itfitzme]

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

The basic scientific principle is the null hypothesis. Do you know what the null hypothesis test is?

The fundamental fact is that climate change has been demonstrated.

You do have to prove your claim because climate change has been demonstrated. It is demonstrated by simple correlation between the GHG and temperatures. It is demonstrated by doing a simple energy budget. It has been further refined and demonstrated by accounting for all measurable factors in accurate climate models.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated nothing. No science education. No mathematical capability. No physics understanding. No understanding of statistics.

You have nothing but bullshit "I don't like it", whiney little girl posts.

You can say, "It's not proven" all you like, it doesn't change the facts or the fact that you have to capacity for evaluating science.

seems like YOU don't know what a null hypothesis is.

Until YOU and your cohort prove that a TRACE gas in the atmosphere is causing the climate to change, there is nothing to discuss.

So far NOBODY has proven it.

Hysterical speculations are not PROOFS.

Why all of your CO2 warmers are specifically concentrated on the trace gas is understandable - the dire need to connect something not related to human activity to that activity in order to punish that activity and make money

And, with the usual con-moron style, you say nothing. No demonstration of knowing any science. Obviously, you don't know.

So, the question remains, the one I asked days ago, why should anyone believe you?

Oh, and I have proven that CO2 is causing temperature to increase. It is highly correlated and has been since it began to rise. Correlation is a requirement for proving causation. And, the net is full of presentations of the absorption characteristics of CO2.

The fact that your an idiot and don't understand the science just demonstrates that your an idiot.

The fact that you can't prove that you have any science education proves that you have no science education and no capability for evaluating science.

 

[itfitzme]

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

The basic scientific principle is the null hypothesis. Do you know what the null hypothesis test is?

The fundamental fact is that climate change has been demonstrated.

You do have to prove your claim because climate change has been demonstrated. It is demonstrated by simple correlation between the GHG and temperatures. It is demonstrated by doing a simple energy budget. It has been further refined and demonstrated by accounting for all measurable factors in accurate climate models.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated nothing. No science education. No mathematical capability. No physics understanding. No understanding of statistics.

You have nothing but bullshit "I don't like it", whiney little girl posts.

You can say, "It's not proven" all you like, it doesn't change the facts or the fact that you have to capacity for evaluating science.

seems like YOU don't know what a null hypothesis is.

Until YOU and your cohort prove that a TRACE gas in the atmosphere is causing the climate to change, there is nothing to discuss.

So far NOBODY has proven it.

Hysterical speculations are not PROOFS.

Why all of your CO2 warmers are specifically concentrated on the trace gas is understandable - the dire need to connect something not related to human activity to that activity in order to punish that activity and make money

I have so trace arsenic for you.

 

[Pete7469]

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

It's funny, after you pointed that out I recalled that Google Earth Shows ZERO ice on the North Pole.

 

[Pete7469]

The basic scientific principle is the null hypothesis. Do you know what the null hypothesis test is?

The fundamental fact is that climate change has been demonstrated.

You do have to prove your claim because climate change has been demonstrated. It is demonstrated by simple correlation between the GHG and temperatures. It is demonstrated by doing a simple energy budget. It has been further refined and demonstrated by accounting for all measurable factors in accurate climate models.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated nothing. No science education. No mathematical capability. No physics understanding. No understanding of statistics.

You have nothing but bullshit "I don't like it", whiney little girl posts.

You can say, "It's not proven" all you like, it doesn't change the facts or the fact that you have to capacity for evaluating science.

seems like YOU don't know what a null hypothesis is.

Until YOU and your cohort prove that a TRACE gas in the atmosphere is causing the climate to change, there is nothing to discuss.

So far NOBODY has proven it.

Hysterical speculations are not PROOFS.

Why all of your CO2 warmers are specifically concentrated on the trace gas is understandable - the dire need to connect something not related to human activity to that activity in order to punish that activity and make money

And, with the usual con-moron style, you say nothing. No demonstration of knowing any science. Obviously, you don't know.

So, the question remains, the one I asked days ago, why should anyone believe you?

Oh, and I have proven that CO2 is causing temperature to increase. It is highly correlated and has been since it began to rise. Correlation is a requirement for proving causation. And, the net is full of presentations of the absorption characteristics of CO2.

The fact that your an idiot and don't understand the science just demonstrates that your an idiot.

The fact that you can't prove that you have any science education proves that you have no science education and no capability for evaluating science.

You're a liar and a pseudo intellectual asshole. You haven't proven shit. Your so called "scientists" have been exposed as frauds, and the "consensus" is that MMGW is complete and utter BULLSHIT.

I do however have the solution for global warming. It will require a small monetary investment and some labor, but I guarantee the world will be a cooler place if everyone does their part.

First, everyone who truly believes human produced CO2 is warming the planet will have to place their heads in clear plastic bags. Then seal the bags using duct tape around their necks to trap all that excess CO2. Remain that way for roughly 12 hours. Any resulting genetic waste can be recycled at a local hog farm.

Not only will the world be a cooler place, the collective intelligence of mankind would nearly double.

 

[itfitzme]

seems like YOU don't know what a null hypothesis is.

Until YOU and your cohort prove that a TRACE gas in the atmosphere is causing the climate to change, there is nothing to discuss.

So far NOBODY has proven it.

Hysterical speculations are not PROOFS.

Why all of your CO2 warmers are specifically concentrated on the trace gas is understandable - the dire need to connect something not related to human activity to that activity in order to punish that activity and make money

And, with the usual con-moron style, you say nothing. No demonstration of knowing any science. Obviously, you don't know.

So, the question remains, the one I asked days ago, why should anyone believe you?

Oh, and I have proven that CO2 is causing temperature to increase. It is highly correlated and has been since it began to rise. Correlation is a requirement for proving causation. And, the net is full of presentations of the absorption characteristics of CO2.

The fact that your an idiot and don't understand the science just demonstrates that your an idiot.

The fact that you can't prove that you have any science education proves that you have no science education and no capability for evaluating science.

You're a liar and a pseudo intellectual asshole. You haven't proven shit. Your so called "scientists" have been exposed as frauds, and the "consensus" is that MMGW is complete and utter BULLSHIT.

I do however have the solution for global warming. It will require a small monetary investment and some labor, but I guarantee the world will be a cooler place if everyone does their part.

First, everyone who truly believes human produced CO2 is warming the planet will have to place their heads in clear plastic bags. Then seal the bags using duct tape around their necks to trap all that excess CO2. Remain that way for roughly 12 hours. Any resulting genetic waste can be recycled at a local hog farm.

Not only will the world be a cooler place, the collective intelligence of mankind would nearly double.

Well, no, I haven't lied nor been proven to be "full of shit." You have managed to respond with no added information.

You do, apparently, have a problem with people that learn things, as expressed with "pseudo intellectual". Apparently you feel that the only way to elevate yourself is by denigrating others.

I am a quite real intellectual. I have spent a lifetime being empathetic and compassionate, taking other's on their word then going and finding out what was true and what wasn't. It has taken me some thirty years of detailed education and analysis to reach the point that I can immediately assess you as being an emotionally based moron.

What you should do is go buy 100 pounds of dry ice. Park your car in the sun, seal all the cracks. Put the dry ice in the back seat, get in and close the door.

Then, come back the next day and tell us how it worked. If your right, you should have no problem with the car getting too hot.

Put your actions where your mouth is, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

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

The basic scientific principle is the null hypothesis. Do you know what the null hypothesis test is?

The fundamental fact is that climate change has been demonstrated.

You do have to prove your claim because climate change has been demonstrated. It is demonstrated by simple correlation between the GHG and temperatures. It is demonstrated by doing a simple energy budget. It has been further refined and demonstrated by accounting for all measurable factors in accurate climate models.

Actually, there is no correlation. Greenhouse gases have been increasing for 15 years but temperature has remained steady. Even if their was a correlation, anyone who claims to understand science would know the classic rule that correlation is not causation.

Therefore, once again, you are wrong. According to your own standard, that means you're a liar, a pathological liar, mentally unbalanced, a fraud, a chronic masturbator and a social misfit.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated nothing. No science education. No mathematical capability. No physics understanding. No understanding of statistics.

You have nothing but bullshit "I don't like it", whiney little girl posts.

You can say, "It's not proven" all you like, it doesn't change the facts or the fact that you have to capacity for evaluating science.

ROFL! Where is the data that Trenberth used to construct his magical ocean energy chart. We're all still waiting for you to cough that up.

 

[itfitzme]

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

The basic scientific principle is the null hypothesis. Do you know what the null hypothesis test is?

The fundamental fact is that climate change has been demonstrated.

You do have to prove your claim because climate change has been demonstrated. It is demonstrated by simple correlation between the GHG and temperatures. It is demonstrated by doing a simple energy budget. It has been further refined and demonstrated by accounting for all measurable factors in accurate climate models.

Actually, there is no correlation. Greenhouse gases have been increasing for 15 years but temperature has remained steady. Even if their was a correlation, anyone who claims to understand science would know the classic rule that correlation is not causation.

Therefore, once again, you are wrong. According to your own standard, that means you're a liar, a pathological liar, mentally unbalanced, a fraud, a chronic masturbator and a social misfit.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated nothing. No science education. No mathematical capability. No physics understanding. No understanding of statistics.

You have nothing but bullshit "I don't like it", whiney little girl posts.

You can say, "It's not proven" all you like, it doesn't change the facts or the fact that you have to capacity for evaluating science.

ROFL! Where is the data that Trenberth used to construct his magical ocean energy chart. We're all still waiting for you to cough that up.

You wouldn't know. You can't calculate correlation. You don't know what the central limit theorem is.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Prove the correlation of CO2 and temperatures is statistically insignificant.

All you have is "You're wrong". You are a whiny little girl that pouts when you can't get your way.

 

[itfitzme]

Well, I've got a nice list of who the morons are that hit like a little girl when they don't get what they want.

 

[Contumacious]

England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

yes, indeed.

Globull warming is pure Luddite BULLSHIT !!!!!!

IPCC report: global warming theory is 'junk science'

Telegraph columnist James Delingpole says Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a "political organisation rather than a scientific one which uses the science to its own ends".

.

 

[itfitzme]

England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

yes, indeed.

Globull warming is pure Luddite BULLSHIT !!!!!!

IPCC report: global warming theory is 'junk science'

Telegraph columnist James Delingpole says Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a "political organisation rather than a scientific one which uses the science to its own ends".

.

A load of crap.! Have you even bothered to read the report? Have you read the current summary yet?

 

[Contumacious]

England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

yes, indeed.

Globull warming is pure Luddite BULLSHIT !!!!!!

IPCC report: global warming theory is 'junk science'

Telegraph columnist James Delingpole says Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a "political organisation rather than a scientific one which uses the science to its own ends".

.

A load of crap.! Have you even bothered to read the report? Have you read the current summary yet?

""The IPCC stands or falls on its computer models. There is no other evidence out there that global warming is any kind of problem. That it exists only in the imagination of the people who programme those computer models and the scientists who contribute to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem."

.

 

[itfitzme]

yes, indeed.

Globull warming is pure Luddite BULLSHIT !!!!!!

IPCC report: global warming theory is 'junk science'

Telegraph columnist James Delingpole says Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a "political organisation rather than a scientific one which uses the science to its own ends".

.

A load of crap.! Have you even bothered to read the report? Have you read the current summary yet?

""The IPCC stands or falls on its computer models. There is no other evidence out there that global warming is any kind of problem. That it exists only in the imagination of the people who programme those computer models and the scientists who contribute to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem."

.

yeah, so... Einstein stood or fell on his differential equation model of time and space. Newton stood or fell on his ignoring the random statistical nature of friction. Your car runs on a computer. Your insurance company stands or falls on their computer models of risk. BP Oil prices and profits stand and fall on their supply and demand models. The ballistics for war ships stand and fall on computet models. The Apollo Space program and the space shuttle program stood and fell on computer models.



So, all you've proven is you don't understand science.

What, you think we still use sliderules and hand cranked adding machines?

 

[konradv]

seems like YOU don't know what a null hypothesis is.

Until YOU and your cohort prove that a TRACE gas in the atmosphere is causing the climate to change, there is nothing to discuss.

So far NOBODY has proven it.

Hysterical speculations are not PROOFS.

Why all of your CO2 warmers are specifically concentrated on the trace gas is understandable - the dire need to connect something not related to human activity to that activity in order to punish that activity and make money

I don't know why you're laughing, unless it's at your own mindless parroting of what other people say. The fact that CO2 is a trace gas is irrelevant to the discussion. There are plenty of studies that show that Earth's climate would be much cooler, if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, the important factor in the equation is the % increase NOT the absolute increase. Learn some science before making yourself look like a fool again, please. All the hysterical claims are actually coming from the deniers. Their ignorance would be really funny, if it weren't so sad and potentially dangerous to us all.

 

[konradv]

95% certainty that climate change has a human component. The people talking about a "pause" are conveniently ignoring the natural variations they usually tout. Whatever the cause of a slowdown, the bottom line is that the trend is still up.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/09/27/climate-change-report-blames-humans-petersons-newday.cnn.html

 

[P@triot]

Vox-

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

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

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

There is NO "climate change" you stupid asshat. Your masters have convinced you of "global warming" despite the fact that the Earth has been in a natural cooling phase for the past decade.

Why are you incapable of questioning your masters? The government table scraps just too enticing for you?

 

[P@triot]

Well, I've got a nice list of who the morons are that hit like a little girl when they don't get what they want.

I see your grammar still hasn't improved...

Now tell us again about all of those post-graduate degrees you have...

 

[P@triot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that is pure overgeneralized bs.

I rest my case ladies & gentlemen....

I started this post with links to facts and continue to add them. Meanwhile, asshat here uses inner-city grammar, generalities, makes outrageous claims about his "education", and has yet to add a link to support anything he has said...

The difference between conservatives and liberals illustrated once again!