Global Warming or Bad Data?

[Wyatt earp]

Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII” « JoNova

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

You fucking liar , now you going to try to tell us Naomi Klein didn't basically say the same thing in her book and in public?

AFTER ALL SHE IS A SCIENCE ADVISER TO THE POPE..

Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII” « JoNova

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

Once again prove it, liar..

 

[Sunsettommy]

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

You fucking liar , now you going to try to tell us Naomi Klein didn't basically say the same thing in her book and in public?

AFTER ALL SHE IS A SCIENCE ADVISER TO THE POPE..

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

Once again prove it, liar..

I nailed him/she HERE

 

[edthecynic]

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

You fucking liar , now you going to try to tell us Naomi Klein didn't basically say the same thing in her book and in public?

AFTER ALL SHE IS A SCIENCE ADVISER TO THE POPE..

FAKE QUOTE, but you knew that already.

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

Once again prove it, liar..

Already did

 

[edthecynic]

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

You fucking liar , now you going to try to tell us Naomi Klein didn't basically say the same thing in her book and in public?

AFTER ALL SHE IS A SCIENCE ADVISER TO THE POPE..

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

Once again prove it, liar..

I nailed him/she HERE

BULLSHIT!
You admitted what he actually said was different from the fake quote.

 

[mamooth]

Back in reality, the "bad" stations show _less_ warming than the good stations. And thus another fuktard denier conspiracy theory whimpers and dies.

Bear doesn't care. He'll still repeat his fraud, knowing that it's fraudulent, because it's what he's been ordered to do. Good cultists like him don't dare disobey.

And again, the lesson. Anything any denier says should initially be assumed to be a lie, unless independent evidence indicates other

 

[mamooth]

Oh it's tainted alright... Much of it doesn't even follow the axioms of Statistical Mathematics... Much of it also outright rejects Science.

You're a poster child for Dunning-Kruger syndrome. You know so little about the topic, you're unaware of how totally ignorant you are. You're so stupid, you actually think you're smart.

Correct. Science is never "settled". Science is, simply put, a set of falsifiable theories.

And your cult babbling isn't falsifiable, so it isn't science. Our views are falsifiable, making them science.

I'll make this challenge again, so you can piss yourself and run again. What is your theory of climate, and what hard data would falsify it? We can answer that. Deniers can't.

Correct. Thermometers need to be uniformly spread out and simultaneously read by the same observer (to remove location and time biases),

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ... more D-K on parade. In his cult mind, if he doesn't understand something, then it can't be done, and doing it any other way has to be fraud.

 

[mamooth]

Why do the global warming alarmists never address what should be glaring issues with the science being utilized to claim a climate emergency? The ops point of the quality issues with US stations is a serious issue. And this is the best system on the planet.

So your cult neglected to inform you that the bad stations show _less_ warming than the "good" stations, thus debunking that retarded conspiracy theory?

If I were you, I'd want to find out why they lied to your face and left you humiliated like this.

But you won't. You're going to run back to the ones who lied to you, drop to your knees, lick their boots and beg for more lies.

 

[mamooth]

Stop being so easily mislead!

Given that the speech can be found by anyone (well, anyone not in your cult, being that your cult forbids looking at non-cult sources), what do you hope to accomplish with your deception here?

Here's the original paragraph from the speech, in German:
«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu» | NZZ
---
Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.

Here's a correct translation:
---
First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
---

Mr. Edenhofer never said we need to redistribute wealth by climate politics. He said the current world climate policy redistributes wealth, from the poor to the CO2-emitting countries. That's a completely different statement, so anyone making the former statement was pushing a falsehood.

You peddled a falsehood. That's not debatable. The only question now is why. Was is due to ignorance, or was it deliberate?

If you did it accidentally, you'll admit it, apologize for your action, and then renounce those who foisted the lie on you.

If it was deliberate, you'll scream hatred at me now for daring to expose the lie, and then you'll run back to those who lied to you.

Once more, this illustrates how anything that any denier says should initially be assumed to be a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise, since history indicates that most often the case.

 

[Sunsettommy]

From Mamooth, without showing where he got this translation from.

Here's a correct translation:
---
First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

=======

Google Translate:

First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to say clearly: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.

All boldings mine

========

They are virtually the same, you are too dumb to realize that. It is YOU who is being dishonest, since they are over 99% the same with each other. You are making a lot of prevaricating fog over nothing, STOP IT!

Who pays you to be this stupid?

 

[Sunsettommy]

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

You fucking liar , now you going to try to tell us Naomi Klein didn't basically say the same thing in her book and in public?

AFTER ALL SHE IS A SCIENCE ADVISER TO THE POPE..

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

Once again prove it, liar..

I nailed him/she HERE

BULLSHIT!
You admitted what he actually said was different from the fake quote.

The quote isn't a fake, it is from GOOGLE TRANSLATE, they match up well with Mamooths translation who didn't provide a link to it, LOOK HERE

Give it up, you have nothing left to B.S. people with.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

You fucking liar , now you going to try to tell us Naomi Klein didn't basically say the same thing in her book and in public?

AFTER ALL SHE IS A SCIENCE ADVISER TO THE POPE..

The only thing fake is your spin on the conversation which clearly stated:
View attachment 277553

FAKE QUOTE, and you know it!

odd
how come AOC handler publicly said the same thing


its never about saving earth or the planet from ourselves
Thats a joke ....on you

It is a FAKE QUOTE no matter who said it, and nobody knows that better than you!

Once again prove it, liar..

Already did

No you didn't you spun it to your liking twat..



Fucking admit it already, AGW is all about social economic justice, ya commie clown.



.

 

[mamooth]

From Mamooth, without showing where he got this translation from.

Here's a correct translation:
---
First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

=======

Google Translate:

First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to say clearly: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.

All boldings mine

========

They are virtually the same, you are too dumb to realize that. It is YOU who is being dishonest, since they are over 99% the same with each other.

That's the point. _Both_ translations say that you and your cult are lying. Mr. Edenhofer never calls for wealth redistribution, yet all deniers loudly and proudly continue to tell that lie, even after they've been corrected.

Given your unwillingness to admit how you were peddling fraud, it's clear that you have no regrets over being a fraud peddler. Your fraud now is clearly deliberate, and you'll continue to push the fraud, with the full knowledge that it's fraud.. I'm glad we cleared that up for everyone.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

From Mamooth, without showing where he got this translation from.

Here's a correct translation:
---
First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

=======

Google Translate:

First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to say clearly: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.

All boldings mine

========

They are virtually the same, you are too dumb to realize that. It is YOU who is being dishonest, since they are over 99% the same with each other.

That's the point. _Both_ translations say that you and your cult are lying. Mr. Edenhofer never calls for wealth redistribution, yet all deniers loudly and proudly continue to tell that lie, even after they've been corrected.

Given your unwillingness to admit how you were peddling fraud, it's clear that you have no regrets over being a fraud peddler. Your fraud now is clearly deliberate, and you'll continue to push the fraud, with the full knowledge that it's fraud.. I'm glad we cleared that up for everyone.

what the difference between wealth redistribution and "natural wealth redistribution " ?

WHy wealth It will naturally redistribute itself ?how does that work?
explain it to us

BUT first you'll need some UNnatural new regulations and laws to get the "natural" to occur ...derp MORONS

god damn you people have the IQ of cockroaches

 

[baileyn45]

Why do the global warming alarmists never address what should be glaring issues with the science being utilized to claim a climate emergency? The ops point of the quality issues with US stations is a serious issue. And this is the best system on the planet.

It is 2% or whatever of the planet. Whoopee.

It's also the best system on the planet. What does that say about the rest of the data?

 

[baileyn45]

Why do the global warming alarmists never address what should be glaring issues with the science being utilized to claim a climate emergency? The ops point of the quality issues with US stations is a serious issue. And this is the best system on the planet.

So your cult neglected to inform you that the bad stations show _less_ warming than the "good" stations, thus debunking that retarded conspiracy theory?

If I were you, I'd want to find out why they lied to your face and left you humiliated like this.

But you won't. You're going to run back to the ones who lied to you, drop to your knees, lick their boots and beg for more lies.

The "good" stations have error margins of 1-2 deg C. Tell me how you can come up with average temps to within a tenth C? If those are the "good: stations, what are the error margins on the bad stations? Comparing bad data to worse data is just plain stupid.

 

[mamooth]

The "good" stations have error margins of 1-2 deg C. Tell me how you can come up with average temps to within a tenth C?

By taking an average of many stations.

That's basic statistics.

 

[SSDD]

The "good" stations have error margins of 1-2 deg C. Tell me how you can come up with average temps to within a tenth C?

By taking an average of many stations.

That's basic statistics.

The only purpose averaging serves is to hide the fact that there is very little "global" anything. It masks the fact that there are only a few places on earth where it is warming...and the fact that there are more places that are cooling...and that most places aren't doing much of anything other than staying the same...

Averaging also masks the fact that great swaths of the data are simply made up...infilled...and it does a fair job of hiding the fact that the warmest places on earth are invariably places where there is the most infilling of data to cover very large gaps in the instrumental coverage...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Notice that cnm, completely ignored this part from post one?

A study by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators here. To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem. Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.

Yeah yeah. The USA as global. Fake data!

Just keep repeating the same old bullshit.

The US-CRN has shown GISS data to be bull shit and highly manipulated.. You lose!

 

[Billy_Bob]

From Mamooth, without showing where he got this translation from.

Here's a correct translation:
---
First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

=======

Google Translate:

First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to say clearly: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.

All boldings mine

========

They are virtually the same, you are too dumb to realize that. It is YOU who is being dishonest, since they are over 99% the same with each other. You are making a lot of prevaricating fog over nothing, STOP IT!

Who pays you to be this stupid?

Its probably Trenbreth or Cook in drag....

What I find interesting, if you read this in the original German text there is emphasis on the wealth redistribution. Google translate diminishes this. I noticed that the Skeptical Shit Science site is the one pushing this false narrative along with slandering Sue over at Hot Whooper.. Both are known socialists and now that their agenda is exposed and people are waking up they are trying like hell to discredit one of their own, without a shred of proof, that what was reported is wrong.