The Impending Collapse of the Global Warming scare!!!

[Billy_Bob]

The numbers based on climate predictions were proved wrong, by Lord Montock and then other scientists agreed when they looked them over.

'Lord' Monkton is no more a Lord, than I am. The House of Lords took the unprecedented step of sending him a letter stating that he was not a Lord, and that he had best cease to claim that. Nor is he a scientist. His only credentials are in journalism. He is a liar and a fraud, all the way around.

Climate sceptic Lord Monckton told he's not member of House of Lords

The letter, sent by David Beamish, clerk of the parliaments, to Monckton last Friday and now published on the Lords' website, states: "You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)."

In May, Mr Justice Lewison threw out an action at the Royal Courts of Justice brought by Baron Mereworth, who maintains that it his hereditary entitlement to attend the Lords, despite the House of Lords Act 1999 debarring all but 92 of the 650 hereditary peers, including his late father Lord Oranmore and Browne. Mr Justice Lewison ruled: "In my judgement, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to a 'member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that house … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that house."

Viscount Monckton's heritage gave him Lordship.. To me this matters not. But in the grand scheme of things that man knows more about the AGW scam than most scientists and can readily expose the fraud..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The alt and far right cucks will eventually fall on their own swords over their scares.

Hmmm........I am suddenly reminded of that scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.........the black knight part!!

LMAO...Jake is the black knight fighting the imaginary alt-right that he so fears...getting his ass kicked and it all happens only in his mind.

Its only a flesh wound... Come back here! I can still bite you!~ Or was it bleed on them?

 

[peach174]

The numbers based on climate predictions were proved wrong, by Lord Montock and then other scientists agreed when they looked them over.

'Lord' Monkton is no more a Lord, than I am. The House of Lords took the unprecedented step of sending him a letter stating that he was not a Lord, and that he had best cease to claim that. Nor is he a scientist. His only credentials are in journalism. He is a liar and a fraud, all the way around.

Climate sceptic Lord Monckton told he's not member of House of Lords

The letter, sent by David Beamish, clerk of the parliaments, to Monckton last Friday and now published on the Lords' website, states: "You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)."

In May, Mr Justice Lewison threw out an action at the Royal Courts of Justice brought by Baron Mereworth, who maintains that it his hereditary entitlement to attend the Lords, despite the House of Lords Act 1999 debarring all but 92 of the 650 hereditary peers, including his late father Lord Oranmore and Browne. Mr Justice Lewison ruled: "In my judgement, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to a 'member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that house … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that house."

Attack his heritage all you want. I could care less about it.
It has nothing to do with what he found.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The numbers based on climate predictions were proved wrong, by Lord Montock and then other scientists agreed when they looked them over.

'Lord' Monkton is no more a Lord, than I am. The House of Lords took the unprecedented step of sending him a letter stating that he was not a Lord, and that he had best cease to claim that. Nor is he a scientist. His only credentials are in journalism. He is a liar and a fraud, all the way around.

Climate sceptic Lord Monckton told he's not member of House of Lords

The letter, sent by David Beamish, clerk of the parliaments, to Monckton last Friday and now published on the Lords' website, states: "You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)."

In May, Mr Justice Lewison threw out an action at the Royal Courts of Justice brought by Baron Mereworth, who maintains that it his hereditary entitlement to attend the Lords, despite the House of Lords Act 1999 debarring all but 92 of the 650 hereditary peers, including his late father Lord Oranmore and Browne. Mr Justice Lewison ruled: "In my judgement, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to a 'member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that house … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that house."

Attack his heritage all you want. I could care less about it.
It has nothing to do with what he found.

Attempts to discredit are a sure sign that the science of the alarmists is garbage and personal attacks are all they have..

 

[Old Rocks]

The bugeyed bastard has not found anything. And the climate continues to warm. Here NASA maps it in relationship to the past ages;

Global Warming : Feature Articles

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.


Global WarmingIs Current Warming Natural?|
Global Warming

• Introduction
• Global Warming
• How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
• Is Current Warming Natural?
• How Much More Will Earth Warm?
• How Will Global Warming Change Earth?
• References and Related Resources

Print this entire article
Subscribe Today

 

[ding]

The bugeyed bastard has not found anything. And the climate continues to warm. Here NASA maps it in relationship to the past ages;

Global Warming : Feature Articles

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.


Global WarmingIs Current Warming Natural?|
Global Warming

• Introduction
• Global Warming
• How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
• Is Current Warming Natural?
• How Much More Will Earth Warm?
• How Will Global Warming Change Earth?
• References and Related Resources

Print this entire article
Subscribe Today

Some dumbasses like yourself make a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles. My answer to that is that it is not possible to make that comparison because we have many data points for the last 50 years but very few for the previous interglacial cycles.

For the red line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 6,957 years from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.3C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 6,957 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only 2 data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the blue line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 7,950 years from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 years ago where the temperature rose by 12.4C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 7,950 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if that slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 just had to be constant at 0.002 C/yr.

For the orange line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the black line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 11,925 years from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 11,925 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the yellow line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.1C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

 

[jc456]

The alt and far right cucks will eventually fall on their own swords over their scares.

Huh?

 

[jc456]

Why is it that only the Trump-cucks constantly create weepy troll threads like this?

Oh, that's right. All the science backs us up, so we can and do talk about the science. We don't have to flap limp-wrists around like skook, in a vain attempt to get people to look away from the science.

And cucks, you really ought to stop lying about the models, being that they've slightly underestimated the warming.

moyhu: Current global temps compared with CMIP 5

Now, don't you all have an imminent ice age to predict, like you've been predicting non-stop for the past 40 years? Impressive, how consistent you all are at failing at every single thing.

I can't wait can you say, DOH

 

[skookerasbil]

dang.....yet another thread where the warmers are getting their clocks cleaned.

This is getting a trite boring around here lately.

 

[ScienceRocks]

dang.....yet another thread where the warmers are getting their clocks cleaned.

This is getting a trite boring around here lately.

Do you hate science?

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Dingleberry, I just think that I will go with NASA's scientists. A matter of credibility you know. Thus far, you have earned none.

 

[skookerasbil]

dang.....yet another thread where the warmers are getting their clocks cleaned.

This is getting a trite boring around here lately.

Do you hate science?

Nah s0n.........but dang I sure do love reality........ Boston – Coldest December 16 in 133 years - Ice Age Now

 

[gipper]

dang.....yet another thread where the warmers are getting their clocks cleaned.

This is getting a trite boring around here lately.

Do you hate science?

When did science become propaganda and lies? I will tell you when...when dumbass warmers got duped by lying elites, into believe the fraud that is AGW.

 

[gipper]

dang.....yet another thread where the warmers are getting their clocks cleaned.

This is getting a trite boring around here lately.

Do you hate science?

Nah s0n.........but dang I sure do love reality........ Boston – Coldest December 16 in 133 years - Ice Age Now

And the Chicago Bears will likely play their coldest game EVER today!!!

Now how could that be? The Bears started playing in 1920!!! Warmer Think: can't be...can't be...can't be...my beloved Gods Fat Albert, Big Ears, and Decrapio would not lie to me....would they?

 

[Old Rocks]

The bugeyed bastard has not found anything. And the climate continues to warm. Here NASA maps it in relationship to the past ages;

Global Warming : Feature Articles

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.


Global WarmingIs Current Warming Natural?|
Global Warming

• Introduction
• Global Warming
• How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
• Is Current Warming Natural?
• How Much More Will Earth Warm?
• How Will Global Warming Change Earth?
• References and Related Resources

Print this entire article
Subscribe Today

Some dumbasses like yourself make a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles. My answer to that is that it is not possible to make that comparison because we have many data points for the last 50 years but very few for the previous interglacial cycles.

For the red line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 6,957 years from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.3C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 6,957 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only 2 data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the blue line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 7,950 years from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 years ago where the temperature rose by 12.4C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 7,950 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if that slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 just had to be constant at 0.002 C/yr.

For the orange line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the black line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 11,925 years from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 11,925 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the yellow line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.1C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

The scientists at NASA only needed two short paragraphs to blow your verbage out of the water.

 

[Old Rocks]

dang.....yet another thread where the warmers are getting their clocks cleaned.

This is getting a trite boring around here lately.

Do you hate science?

Nah s0n.........but dang I sure do love reality........ Boston – Coldest December 16 in 133 years - Ice Age Now

And the Chicago Bears will likely play their coldest game EVER today!!!

Now how could that be? The Bears started playing in 1920!!! Warmer Think: can't be...can't be...can't be...my beloved Gods Fat Albert, Big Ears, and Decrapio would not lie to me....would they?

Wonderful. Hope you fellows in the mid-west are enjoying exactly what the scientists like Jennifer Francis predicted for you because of the Arctic Sea Ice melt.

 

[gipper]

dang.....yet another thread where the warmers are getting their clocks cleaned.

This is getting a trite boring around here lately.

Do you hate science?

Nah s0n.........but dang I sure do love reality........ Boston – Coldest December 16 in 133 years - Ice Age Now

And the Chicago Bears will likely play their coldest game EVER today!!!

Now how could that be? The Bears started playing in 1920!!! Warmer Think: can't be...can't be...can't be...my beloved Gods Fat Albert, Big Ears, and Decrapio would not lie to me....would they?

Wonderful. Hope you fellows in the mid-west are enjoying exactly what the scientists like Jennifer Francis predicted for you because of the Arctic Sea Ice melt.

Damn...when its cold its AGW, when its hot its AGW, when its windy its AGW, when its cloudy its AGW, when its sunny is AGW, when its rainy its AGW, when its drought its AGW, when its 'whatever' is AGW.

If only I had the power to sell BS like that...I too could be a billionaire like Fat Albert.

 

[Old Rocks]

dang.....yet another thread where the warmers are getting their clocks cleaned.

This is getting a trite boring around here lately.

Do you hate science?

Nah s0n.........but dang I sure do love reality........ Boston – Coldest December 16 in 133 years - Ice Age Now

And the Chicago Bears will likely play their coldest game EVER today!!!

Now how could that be? The Bears started playing in 1920!!! Warmer Think: can't be...can't be...can't be...my beloved Gods Fat Albert, Big Ears, and Decrapio would not lie to me....would they?

Wonderful. Hope you fellows in the mid-west are enjoying exactly what the scientists like Jennifer Francis predicted for you because of the Arctic Sea Ice melt.

Damn...when its cold its AGW, when its hot its AGW, when its windy its AGW, when its cloudy its AGW, when its sunny is AGW, when its rainy its AGW, when its drought its AGW, when its 'whatever' is AGW.

If only I had the power to sell BS like that...I too could be a billionaire like Fat Albert.

If only you had an IQ larger than room temperature, you could understand this;

 

[gipper]

Do you hate science?

Nah s0n.........but dang I sure do love reality........ Boston – Coldest December 16 in 133 years - Ice Age Now

And the Chicago Bears will likely play their coldest game EVER today!!!

Now how could that be? The Bears started playing in 1920!!! Warmer Think: can't be...can't be...can't be...my beloved Gods Fat Albert, Big Ears, and Decrapio would not lie to me....would they?

Wonderful. Hope you fellows in the mid-west are enjoying exactly what the scientists like Jennifer Francis predicted for you because of the Arctic Sea Ice melt.

Damn...when its cold its AGW, when its hot its AGW, when its windy its AGW, when its cloudy its AGW, when its sunny is AGW, when its rainy its AGW, when its drought its AGW, when its 'whatever' is AGW.

If only I had the power to sell BS like that...I too could be a billionaire like Fat Albert.

If only you had an IQ larger than room temperature, you could understand this;

Go back to bed OldDude...it is far too COLD outside for your bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, enjoy!