Hansen's way of dealing with inconvenient history

[Uncensored2008]

Does Obamacare pay for that?

You betcha!

 

[Big Fitz]

Does Obamacare pay for that?

You betcha!

But we can't afford Obamacare. Soooo... where does that leave us?

 

[Big Fitz]

You are quite the little retard, davedork. Too stupid to read what is in front of you, apparently. The study being quoted was published in a peer reviewed science journal, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The information is quite accurate. Too bad it demolishes your idiotic and meaningless denier cult myth that you are so attached to.

Wait a minute....

Aren't weather (meteorology) and climate supposed to be two different things?

Which way do you warmist cargo cultists want it?

Nevermind what I said then. It's not relevant to my point now which contradicts that, but you're not allowed to remember that.

 

[edthecynic]

Holy shit, you're gullible.

But then, you're an AGW cultist. They're all gullible.

I made you EAT the words from YOUR own link, and I'm the one that's gullible!
Brilliant!

You couldn't make a starving man eat a cheeseburger.

So, you believed them in the '70's when they said we're all gonna freeze. You believe them now when they say we're all gonna burn.

Face it...you believe them no matter what they say. It's an article of faith for you.

Again for the very slow, YOU posted a link to that quote to show that scientists were predicting an Ice Age, but they were NOT predicting an Ice Age. They were showing that the models predict an Ice Age WITHOUT the influence of man. So if they were predicting anything it was that the influence of man would overwhelm the coming Ice Age.

This just highlights that deniers do NO research, but only QUOTE MINE for crap they can take out of context and attack real researchers with. The purpose of the deniers is not to find out the truth, they already know there is global warming, but to discredit anyone whose data does not support the goals on the energy industry.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again for the very slow, YOU posted a link to that quote to show that scientists were predicting an Ice Age, but they were NOT predicting an Ice Age. They were showing that the models predict an Ice Age WITHOUT the influence of man.

ROFL

You're like a Jehovah's witness explaining that Jesus really did return....

Sorry edtheliar, you can't change the facts of history. You can't make the MWP go away, and you can't change the fact that the same morons pushing AGW now were claiming an Ice Age. Hell, they made to the cover of fucking Time.

It got warmer instead of colder, so they changed to global warming and got you cultists agreeing that we've always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[edthecynic]

Again for the very slow, YOU posted a link to that quote to show that scientists were predicting an Ice Age, but they were NOT predicting an Ice Age. They were showing that the models predict an Ice Age WITHOUT the influence of man.

ROFL

You're like a Jehovah's witness explaining that Jesus really did return....

Sorry edtheliar, you can't change the facts of history. You can't make the MWP go away, and you can't change the fact that the same morons pushing AGW now were claiming an Ice Age. Hell, they made to the cover of fucking Time.

It got warmer instead of colder, so they changed to global warming and got you cultists agreeing that we've always been at war with Eastasia.

BULLSHIT!

Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
Science, 12/10/76

6) It is concluded that changes in the earth's orbital geometry are the fundamental cause of the succession of Quaternary ice ages.
7) A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next seven thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.
​

 

[gslack]

Love it when the Algorians pull out the colorful maps and graphs. Okay who left the crayons and markers out? Love the pretty colors!

I love the mindless DittoTards who get their science from the most scientificly ignorant person in any room he walks into. Their MessiahRushie tells them to spell Gore's name as one word and the mindless drones are POWERLESS to do anything else!!!

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

For the dumb DittoTards, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe has ever come from H2O.

Sorry to burst your bubble ed the eunuch, but I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, RUSH the band yes. And that's the problem with your entire line of BS. You decide in your own special way that the world is either right or left or black or white. Well you're wrong Eunuch. The real world isn't like that, in the real world (not the internet or major media) people are not so simple. You may be a one dimensional polarized thinker but a great many of us are not.

I called you an ALGORIAN because you show all the attributes of one. YOU are the one claiming the planets warming and its all our fault. You even brought colored graphs and charts to help you make the claim just like Al Gore did, and just like his pseudo-science (which he was busted for in court BTW) you are parroting it. We already know you are just posting what your ALGORIAN Green blog or CNN tells you is science with no more investigation than I would give my fingernail clippings, so please spare us the pretense.

Further anyone who considers CO2 THE cause of climate change and not an effect, is obviously one step away from beheading villagers to appease the sun god.

 

[edthecynic]

Love it when the Algorians pull out the colorful maps and graphs. Okay who left the crayons and markers out? Love the pretty colors!

I love the mindless DittoTards who get their science from the most scientificly ignorant person in any room he walks into. Their MessiahRushie tells them to spell Gore's name as one word and the mindless drones are POWERLESS to do anything else!!!

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

For the dumb DittoTards, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe has ever come from H2O.

Sorry to burst your bubble ed the eunuch, but I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, RUSH the band yes. And that's the problem with your entire line of BS. You decide in your own special way that the world is either right or left or black or white. Well you're wrong Eunuch. The real world isn't like that, in the real world (not the internet or major media) people are not so simple. You may be a one dimensional polarized thinker but a great many of us are not.

I called you an ALGORIAN because you show all the attributes of one. YOU are the one claiming the planets warming and its all our fault. You even brought colored graphs and charts to help you make the claim just like Al Gore did, and just like his pseudo-science (which he was busted for in court BTW) you are parroting it. We already know you are just posting what your ALGORIAN Green blog or CNN tells you is science with no more investigation than I would give my fingernail clippings, so please spare us the pretense.

Further anyone who considers CO2 THE cause of climate change and not an effect, is obviously one step away from beheading villagers to appease the sun god.

You fool no one. You call me an "ALGORian" because your MessiahRushie programmed you to spell Gore's name as one word. And I was not the one who blamed global warming on man, the link DumbAssDave posted did. And the colored chart I posted had nothing to with man's contribution to global warming or CO2, but to show the number of temperature stations and their locations. So you got everything wrong, but it was a good rant anyway.

 

[RollingThunder]

You are quite the little retard, davedork. Too stupid to read what is in front of you, apparently. The study being quoted was published in a peer reviewed science journal, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The information is quite accurate. Too bad it demolishes your idiotic and meaningless denier cult myth that you are so attached to.

Wait a minute....

Aren't weather (meteorology) and climate supposed to be two different things?

Which way do you warmist cargo cultists want it?

Yeah, Oddbrain, there is a difference between weather and climate, an important difference that you dumbass denier cultists are usually too ignorant to understand. There is also usually a very big difference, in education and professional focus, between a climate scientist, who usually has a doctorate in some field of science and who is specifically researching some aspect of the Earth's climate, and an ordinary weatherman, who usually only has a BS (or even BA) and who just reports the short range weather on TV.

However, you poor deluded clown, that does not mean that there aren't highly educated research meteorologists who contribute to climate science and it certainly does not mean that the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society is not a highly respected and reputable peer-reviewed science journal that publishes a lot of good research on the climate.

Once again, your comments only betray your ignorance and confusion about this whole topic.

 

[RollingThunder]

Love it when the Algorians pull out the colorful maps and graphs. Okay who left the crayons and markers out? Love the pretty colors!

I love the mindless DittoTards who get their science from the most scientificly ignorant person in any room he walks into. Their MessiahRushie tells them to spell Gore's name as one word and the mindless drones are POWERLESS to do anything else!!!

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

For the dumb DittoTards, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe has ever come from H2O.

I called you an ALGORIAN because you show all the attributes of one. YOU are the one claiming the planets warming and its all our fault. You even brought colored graphs and charts to help you make the claim just like Al Gore did, and just like his pseudo-science (which he was busted for in court BTW) you are parroting it. We already know you are just posting what your ALGORIAN Green blog or CNN tells you is science with no more investigation than I would give my fingernail clippings, so please spare us the pretense.

Further anyone who considers CO2 THE cause of climate change and not an effect, is obviously one step away from beheading villagers to appease the sun god.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....oh my, the slack-jawed-idiot is back to substantially lower the average IQ of the denier side of the debate. I think, with him here, it actually goes into negative numbers.

Like most of more braindead denier cultists, ol' slackjawed is obsessed with Vice President Gore and hallucinates that Gore is the source of modern climate science. Pointing out the it is the entire world scientific community that is "claiming the planets(sic) warming" and also saying that mankind is responsible for the current abrupt warming does not penetrate ol' slack-jawed's delusional belief systems because his little pea-brain is filled to the brim with the misinformation, propaganda and lies that his puppet masters have spooned into his skull. Take for example this one - "like Al Gore did, and just like his pseudo-science (which he was busted for in court BTW)". One of the standard denier cult myths that has almost no connection to reality is this one about the court case in Britain that was brought by a stooge for the fossil fuel industry and that tried to ban the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in British public schools as part of their environmental education. The case failed, the film is still being shown in the schools, and the judge, Justice Burton, stated specifically: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". Out of the thousands of facts presented in the movie, the judge said that nine fairly minor points were not sufficiently supported by the current evidence and so the teachers would need to explain that there was still some controversy on the accuracy of those specific points. The judge did not say that there were any errors in the science, just that the experts were not in agreement on those points. Since that court case happened, new evidence has emerged that now supports some of the points that the judge thought were 'iffy'. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet, for example, is happening much faster than expected and there are indications that the ice sheet may collapse a lot sooner than previously thought possible if present trends continue. In all, though, the court's judgment validated the accuracy of almost everything in former VP Gore's movie and ruled that it can be shown in schools as part of their environmental education curriculum. As is quite usual for the denier cult propagandists though, they tried to spin up the dispute over some minor points that were possibly slightly exaggerated into 'a huge refutation of the science in Gore's movie by the courts'. LOL. It is a pity and a sad commentary on our educational system that denier cultists are so extremely gullible and so easily manipulated by the lies of the fossil fuel industry.

And then, for dessert, there is the slack-jawed-idiot's rather amusingly insane and very retarded claim about those "who consider CO2 THE cause of climate change", which of course would include the entire world scientific community, most governmental and business leaders, and most of the intelligent people in the world. LOLOLOL....you denier cult bozos are a hoot!

 

[westwall]

I love the mindless DittoTards who get their science from the most scientificly ignorant person in any room he walks into. Their MessiahRushie tells them to spell Gore's name as one word and the mindless drones are POWERLESS to do anything else!!!

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

For the dumb DittoTards, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe has ever come from H2O.

I called you an ALGORIAN because you show all the attributes of one. YOU are the one claiming the planets warming and its all our fault. You even brought colored graphs and charts to help you make the claim just like Al Gore did, and just like his pseudo-science (which he was busted for in court BTW) you are parroting it. We already know you are just posting what your ALGORIAN Green blog or CNN tells you is science with no more investigation than I would give my fingernail clippings, so please spare us the pretense.

Further anyone who considers CO2 THE cause of climate change and not an effect, is obviously one step away from beheading villagers to appease the sun god.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....oh my, the slack-jawed-idiot is back to substantially lower the average IQ of the denier side of the debate. I think, with him here, it actually goes into negative numbers.

Like most of more braindead denier cultists, ol' slackjawed is obsessed with Vice President Gore and hallucinates that Gore is the source of modern climate science. Pointing out the it is the entire world scientific community that is "claiming the planets(sic) warming" and also saying that mankind is responsible for the current abrupt warming does not penetrate ol' slack-jawed's delusional belief systems because his little pea-brain is filled to the brim with the misinformation, propaganda and lies that his puppet masters have spooned into his skull. Take for example this one - "like Al Gore did, and just like his pseudo-science (which he was busted for in court BTW)". One of the standard denier cult myths that has almost no connection to reality is this one about the court case in Britain that was brought by a stooge for the fossil fuel industry and that tried to ban the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in British public schools as part of their environmental education. The case failed, the film is still being shown in the schools, and the judge, Justice Burton, stated specifically: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". Out of the thousands of facts presented in the movie, the judge said that nine fairly minor points were not sufficiently supported by the current evidence and so the teachers would need to explain that there was still some controversy on the accuracy of those specific points. The judge did not say that there were any errors in the science, just that the experts were not in agreement on those points. Since that court case happened, new evidence has emerged that now supports some of the points that the judge thought were 'iffy'. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet, for example, is happening much faster than expected and there are indications that the ice sheet may collapse a lot sooner than previously thought possible if present trends continue. In all, though, the court's judgment validated the accuracy of almost everything in former VP Gore's movie and ruled that it can be shown in schools as part of their environmental education curriculum. As is quite usual for the denier cult propagandists though, they tried to spin up the dispute over some minor points that were possibly slightly exaggerated into 'a huge refutation of the science in Gore's movie by the courts'. LOL. It is a pity and a sad commentary on our educational system that denier cultists are so extremely gullible and so easily manipulated by the lies of the fossil fuel industry.

And then, for dessert, there is the slack-jawed-idiot's rather amusingly insane and very retarded claim about those "who consider CO2 THE cause of climate change", which of course would include the entire world scientific community, most governmental and business leaders, and most of the intelligent people in the world. LOLOLOL....you denier cult bozos are a hoot!

Wow, you post all kinds of nonsense don't you. Here is the Times report on the judgment AGAINST an Inconvenient Truth. And yes the judge agreed with the "theory" of AGW but he also said the movie did not present evidence to support the theory.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said in his ruling. “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-Presi-dent, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views.

The Government’s decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dim-mock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of brainwashing children.

The first mistake made by Mr Gore, said Mr Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps.

The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.

Mr Justice Burton added: “The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.

Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”. The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change”.

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded.

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases&#8217.”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece

 

[daveman]

Does Obamacare pay for that?

You betcha!

But we can't afford Obamacare. Soooo... where does that leave us?

Well, shit. Maybe I can just hit myself in the head with a hammer. A lot.

 

[daveman]

I made you EAT the words from YOUR own link, and I'm the one that's gullible!
Brilliant!

You couldn't make a starving man eat a cheeseburger.

So, you believed them in the '70's when they said we're all gonna freeze. You believe them now when they say we're all gonna burn.

Face it...you believe them no matter what they say. It's an article of faith for you.

Again for the very slow, YOU posted a link to that quote to show that scientists were predicting an Ice Age, but they were NOT predicting an Ice Age. They were showing that the models predict an Ice Age WITHOUT the influence of man. So if they were predicting anything it was that the influence of man would overwhelm the coming Ice Age.

This just highlights that deniers do NO research, but only QUOTE MINE for crap they can take out of context and attack real researchers with. The purpose of the deniers is not to find out the truth, they already know there is global warming, but to discredit anyone whose data does not support the goals on the energy industry.

And again for the cultists:

You believe what you're told to believe. Immediately, slavishly, unquestioningly.

 

[daveman]

Yeah, Oddbrain, there is a difference between weather and climate, an important difference that you dumbass denier cultists are usually too ignorant to understand.

You mean like Chris, insisting weather is climate in his record temps thread?

I can't help but notice you haven't corrected him yet. You might want to rush over there and do that.

 

[Big Fitz]

You betcha!

But we can't afford Obamacare. Soooo... where does that leave us?

Well, shit. Maybe I can just hit myself in the head with a hammer. A lot.

It's never helped the chicken little cultists. What makes you think you'd fare any better?

 

[gslack]

I love the mindless DittoTards who get their science from the most scientificly ignorant person in any room he walks into. Their MessiahRushie tells them to spell Gore's name as one word and the mindless drones are POWERLESS to do anything else!!!

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

For the dumb DittoTards, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe has ever come from H2O.

I called you an ALGORIAN because you show all the attributes of one. YOU are the one claiming the planets warming and its all our fault. You even brought colored graphs and charts to help you make the claim just like Al Gore did, and just like his pseudo-science (which he was busted for in court BTW) you are parroting it. We already know you are just posting what your ALGORIAN Green blog or CNN tells you is science with no more investigation than I would give my fingernail clippings, so please spare us the pretense.

Further anyone who considers CO2 THE cause of climate change and not an effect, is obviously one step away from beheading villagers to appease the sun god.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....oh my, the slack-jawed-idiot is back to substantially lower the average IQ of the denier side of the debate. I think, with him here, it actually goes into negative numbers.

Like most of more braindead denier cultists, ol' slackjawed is obsessed with Vice President Gore and hallucinates that Gore is the source of modern climate science. Pointing out the it is the entire world scientific community that is "claiming the planets(sic) warming" and also saying that mankind is responsible for the current abrupt warming does not penetrate ol' slack-jawed's delusional belief systems because his little pea-brain is filled to the brim with the misinformation, propaganda and lies that his puppet masters have spooned into his skull. Take for example this one - "like Al Gore did, and just like his pseudo-science (which he was busted for in court BTW)". One of the standard denier cult myths that has almost no connection to reality is this one about the court case in Britain that was brought by a stooge for the fossil fuel industry and that tried to ban the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in British public schools as part of their environmental education. The case failed, the film is still being shown in the schools, and the judge, Justice Burton, stated specifically: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". Out of the thousands of facts presented in the movie, the judge said that nine fairly minor points were not sufficiently supported by the current evidence and so the teachers would need to explain that there was still some controversy on the accuracy of those specific points. The judge did not say that there were any errors in the science, just that the experts were not in agreement on those points. Since that court case happened, new evidence has emerged that now supports some of the points that the judge thought were 'iffy'. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet, for example, is happening much faster than expected and there are indications that the ice sheet may collapse a lot sooner than previously thought possible if present trends continue. In all, though, the court's judgment validated the accuracy of almost everything in former VP Gore's movie and ruled that it can be shown in schools as part of their environmental education curriculum. As is quite usual for the denier cult propagandists though, they tried to spin up the dispute over some minor points that were possibly slightly exaggerated into 'a huge refutation of the science in Gore's movie by the courts'. LOL. It is a pity and a sad commentary on our educational system that denier cultists are so extremely gullible and so easily manipulated by the lies of the fossil fuel industry.

And then, for dessert, there is the slack-jawed-idiot's rather amusingly insane and very retarded claim about those "who consider CO2 THE cause of climate change", which of course would include the entire world scientific community, most governmental and business leaders, and most of the intelligent people in the world. LOLOLOL....you denier cult bozos are a hoot!

YES, yes, if you behead enough of them the Sun god will be pleased.... Trolling Blunder

 

[RollingThunder]

I called you an ALGORIAN because you show all the attributes of one. YOU are the one claiming the planets warming and its all our fault. You even brought colored graphs and charts to help you make the claim just like Al Gore did, and just like his pseudo-science (which he was busted for in court BTW) you are parroting it. We already know you are just posting what your ALGORIAN Green blog or CNN tells you is science with no more investigation than I would give my fingernail clippings, so please spare us the pretense.

Further anyone who considers CO2 THE cause of climate change and not an effect, is obviously one step away from beheading villagers to appease the sun god.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....oh my, the slack-jawed-idiot is back to substantially lower the average IQ of the denier side of the debate. I think, with him here, it actually goes into negative numbers.

Like most of more braindead denier cultists, ol' slackjawed is obsessed with Vice President Gore and hallucinates that Gore is the source of modern climate science. Pointing out the it is the entire world scientific community that is "claiming the planets(sic) warming" and also saying that mankind is responsible for the current abrupt warming does not penetrate ol' slack-jawed's delusional belief systems because his little pea-brain is filled to the brim with the misinformation, propaganda and lies that his puppet masters have spooned into his skull. Take for example this one - "like Al Gore did, and just like his pseudo-science (which he was busted for in court BTW)". One of the standard denier cult myths that has almost no connection to reality is this one about the court case in Britain that was brought by a stooge for the fossil fuel industry and that tried to ban the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in British public schools as part of their environmental education. The case failed, the film is still being shown in the schools, and the judge, Justice Burton, stated specifically: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". Out of the thousands of facts presented in the movie, the judge said that nine fairly minor points were not sufficiently supported by the current evidence and so the teachers would need to explain that there was still some controversy on the accuracy of those specific points. The judge did not say that there were any errors in the science, just that the experts were not in agreement on those points. Since that court case happened, new evidence has emerged that now supports some of the points that the judge thought were 'iffy'. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet, for example, is happening much faster than expected and there are indications that the ice sheet may collapse a lot sooner than previously thought possible if present trends continue. In all, though, the court's judgment validated the accuracy of almost everything in former VP Gore's movie and ruled that it can be shown in schools as part of their environmental education curriculum. As is quite usual for the denier cult propagandists though, they tried to spin up the dispute over some minor points that were possibly slightly exaggerated into 'a huge refutation of the science in Gore's movie by the courts'. LOL. It is a pity and a sad commentary on our educational system that denier cultists are so extremely gullible and so easily manipulated by the lies of the fossil fuel industry.

And then, for dessert, there is the slack-jawed-idiot's rather amusingly insane and very retarded claim about those "who consider CO2 THE cause of climate change", which of course would include the entire world scientific community, most governmental and business leaders, and most of the intelligent people in the world. LOLOLOL....you denier cult bozos are a hoot!

Wow, you post all kinds of nonsense don't you.

No dimwit, I post the facts and you post the nonsense.

Here is the Times report on the judgment AGAINST an Inconvenient Truth. And yes the judge agreed with the "theory" of AGW but he also said the movie did not present evidence to support the theory.

Total bullshit, walleyed. The lawsuit by the denier cultist was trying to stop distribution of VP Gore's film to the schools in Britain outright and it failed. The lawsuit was rejected. The judge approved the movie for distribution (it's still being shown) and he did indeed say what I quoted him as saying - "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". None of your idiotic denier cult spin can change those facts.

The lawsuit was attempting to ban the movie from schools on the basis that it constituted a kind of political advocacy without presenting opposing viewpoints, which is required under a kind of British 'Fairness Doctrine', and the lawsuit presented a very long list of challenges to the scientific basis of what Gore was claiming in the movie. The judge rejected almost all of those "alleged errors or exaggerations" and only allowed that there might be nine points that weren't fully supported by the mainstream scientific consensus.

Thinking that a judge is the best one to determine the validity of science, rather than an actual scientist, is pretty ridiculous to begin with. Apparently the judge thought so too because he said this:
"Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand. In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the "errors" in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 "errors" that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott."

That's from the Justice Burton's written judgment on the case. Notice that he uses quotation marks around the word "errors"...well, he does that all through the judgment, 17 times in all, pretty much every time he uses the word. The judge is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that the plaintiff alleged were errors. Read the sentence I highlighted. The judge is being very clear that the hearing was not about analyzing the disputes about the science in the movie that the plaintiffs had raised but only whether any of the alleged "errors" differed enough from the "mainstream" IPCC assessment (and some other expert testimony), so as to require, under a British law ss407, an addendum for the teachers to read when showing the movie, stating that there are other views on those nine points and discussing them. BTW, ss407 says that where political issues are involved there should be "a balanced presentation of opposing views". Justice Burton called these nine points where he felt Gore's movie was not fully supported scientifically, "departures from the mainstream". Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth', but rather that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance.

That said, the fact is that the cutting edge of climate science actually supports most of those nine points and shows that the judge's opinions on the supposed "exaggerations" were not particularly accurate.

We can go over those nine points if you'd like and I can show you the scientific facts. It's late now so maybe later.

 

[daveman]

But we can't afford Obamacare. Soooo... where does that leave us?

Well, shit. Maybe I can just hit myself in the head with a hammer. A lot.

It's never helped the chicken little cultists. What makes you think you'd fare any better?

Yeah, you're right. Guess I'll just stick with being a normal person.

 

[westwall]

LOLOLOLOLOL.....oh my, the slack-jawed-idiot is back to substantially lower the average IQ of the denier side of the debate. I think, with him here, it actually goes into negative numbers.

Like most of more braindead denier cultists, ol' slackjawed is obsessed with Vice President Gore and hallucinates that Gore is the source of modern climate science. Pointing out the it is the entire world scientific community that is "claiming the planets(sic) warming" and also saying that mankind is responsible for the current abrupt warming does not penetrate ol' slack-jawed's delusional belief systems because his little pea-brain is filled to the brim with the misinformation, propaganda and lies that his puppet masters have spooned into his skull. Take for example this one - "like Al Gore did, and just like his pseudo-science (which he was busted for in court BTW)". One of the standard denier cult myths that has almost no connection to reality is this one about the court case in Britain that was brought by a stooge for the fossil fuel industry and that tried to ban the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in British public schools as part of their environmental education. The case failed, the film is still being shown in the schools, and the judge, Justice Burton, stated specifically: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". Out of the thousands of facts presented in the movie, the judge said that nine fairly minor points were not sufficiently supported by the current evidence and so the teachers would need to explain that there was still some controversy on the accuracy of those specific points. The judge did not say that there were any errors in the science, just that the experts were not in agreement on those points. Since that court case happened, new evidence has emerged that now supports some of the points that the judge thought were 'iffy'. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet, for example, is happening much faster than expected and there are indications that the ice sheet may collapse a lot sooner than previously thought possible if present trends continue. In all, though, the court's judgment validated the accuracy of almost everything in former VP Gore's movie and ruled that it can be shown in schools as part of their environmental education curriculum. As is quite usual for the denier cult propagandists though, they tried to spin up the dispute over some minor points that were possibly slightly exaggerated into 'a huge refutation of the science in Gore's movie by the courts'. LOL. It is a pity and a sad commentary on our educational system that denier cultists are so extremely gullible and so easily manipulated by the lies of the fossil fuel industry.

And then, for dessert, there is the slack-jawed-idiot's rather amusingly insane and very retarded claim about those "who consider CO2 THE cause of climate change", which of course would include the entire world scientific community, most governmental and business leaders, and most of the intelligent people in the world. LOLOLOL....you denier cult bozos are a hoot!

Wow, you post all kinds of nonsense don't you.

No dimwit, I post the facts and you post the nonsense.

Here is the Times report on the judgment AGAINST an Inconvenient Truth. And yes the judge agreed with the "theory" of AGW but he also said the movie did not present evidence to support the theory.

Total bullshit, walleyed. The lawsuit by the denier cultist was trying to stop distribution of VP Gore's film to the schools in Britain outright and it failed. The lawsuit was rejected. The judge approved the movie for distribution (it's still being shown) and he did indeed say what I quoted him as saying - "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". None of your idiotic denier cult spin can change those facts.

The lawsuit was attempting to ban the movie from schools on the basis that it constituted a kind of political advocacy without presenting opposing viewpoints, which is required under a kind of British 'Fairness Doctrine', and the lawsuit presented a very long list of challenges to the scientific basis of what Gore was claiming in the movie. The judge rejected almost all of those "alleged errors or exaggerations" and only allowed that there might be nine points that weren't fully supported by the mainstream scientific consensus.

Thinking that a judge is the best one to determine the validity of science, rather than an actual scientist, is pretty ridiculous to begin with. Apparently the judge thought so too because he said this:
"Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand. In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the "errors" in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 "errors" that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott."

That's from the Justice Burton's written judgment on the case. Notice that he uses quotation marks around the word "errors"...well, he does that all through the judgment, 17 times in all, pretty much every time he uses the word. The judge is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that the plaintiff alleged were errors. Read the sentence I highlighted. The judge is being very clear that the hearing was not about analyzing the disputes about the science in the movie that the plaintiffs had raised but only whether any of the alleged "errors" differed enough from the "mainstream" IPCC assessment (and some other expert testimony), so as to require, under a British law ss407, an addendum for the teachers to read when showing the movie, stating that there are other views on those nine points and discussing them. BTW, ss407 says that where political issues are involved there should be "a balanced presentation of opposing views". Justice Burton called these nine points where he felt Gore's movie was not fully supported scientifically, "departures from the mainstream". Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth', but rather that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance.

That said, the fact is that the cutting edge of climate science actually supports most of those nine points and shows that the judge's opinions on the supposed "exaggerations" were not particularly accurate.

We can go over those nine points if you'd like and I can show you the scientific facts. It's late now so maybe later.

Wrong again Tojo. The person who brought the suit complained about the lack of scientific accuracy and the very obvious propagandistic nature of the film. He wanted the film, when shown, to be required to show the errors that were pointed out in the ruling. My gosh but you're a halfwit, and not a good on at that.

 

[edthecynic]

Well, shit. Maybe I can just hit myself in the head with a hammer. A lot.

It's never helped the chicken little cultists. What makes you think you'd fare any better?

Yeah, you're right. Guess I'll just stick with being a normal person.

That ship has sailed, you are a day late and a dollar short!