Leaked UN draft report warns of urgent need to cut global warming

monckton wrote:
An average of some numbers from a while back that proves useful.

monckton wrote:
Oh I doubt it.

This leads us to consider the concept of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis states what we would expect purely from chance alone, in the absence of anything interesting (such as a trend) in the data.

monckton wrote:
I was going to rest his case and give him the 'win'.
Feel sorry for the poor bastards after watching that Joe Rogan clip.
Made me want to play Taps again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChTqYlDjtI

monckton wrote:
Go on, bring one of them clowns out, lets have a laugh.

monckton wrote:
An average of some numbers from a while back that proves useful.

James___ wrote:

monckton wrote:
Oh I doubt it.

...Statistical analysis is something they don't seem to understand.

James___ wrote:
This is based on logic. Why does this matter ? Because itn uses logic to falsify science.

James___ wrote:

This leads us to consider the concept of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis states what we would expect purely from chance alone, in the absence of anything interesting (such as a trend) in the data.

James___ wrote:
This means that when data collected, if it is argued that nothing is has changed then it will be similar to the previous data collected.

James___ wrote:
Then we have a null hypothesis.

James___ wrote:
.Then if the new data varies from the previously collected data then the null hypothesis has been falsified.

James___ wrote:
What does this mean ?

James___ wrote:
that itn can now falsify logic.

James___ wrote:
He can correct this post and falsify what a hypothesis and a null hypothesis are.

James___ wrote:
He can also falsify that when logic is used to consider data that has been collected that this is not science.

James___ wrote:
He will argue that when logic is used to consider how data and physical events are considered that it is not science.

James___ wrote:
.To many baseball fans they would want to know if all of the stats that they keep in baseball and analyze ad nauseum are just random numbers. In sports such information is called metrics.
...deleted redundancy...

Wake wrote:

monckton wrote:
Go on, bring one of them clowns out, lets have a laugh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVodjhoP5No&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMttEhtgpk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ36ded2Wc0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4AAN0H8MRg

After you peruse these (which of course you have no intentions of doing) you may go out onto your protest march to murder one third of the poor people of the globe.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

monckton wrote:
Oh I doubt it.

...Statistical analysis is something they don't seem to understand.

Inversion fallacy.

James___ wrote:
This is based on logic. Why does this matter ? Because itn uses logic to falsify science.

Logic does not falsify science. Neither can be falsified.

James___ wrote:

This leads us to consider the concept of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis states what we would expect purely from chance alone, in the absence of anything interesting (such as a trend) in the data.

Not the definition of the null hypothesis.
..This demonstrates that from the beginning that logic is used to void any meaning in the data collected.

James___ wrote:
This means that when data collected, if it is argued that nothing is has changed then it will be similar to the previous data collected.

James___ wrote:
Then we have a null hypothesis.

James___ wrote:
.Then if the new data varies from the previously collected data then the null hypothesis has been falsified.

James___ wrote:
What does this mean ?

James___ wrote:
that itn can now falsify logic.

James___ wrote:
He can correct this post and falsify what a hypothesis and a null hypothesis are.

James___ wrote:
He can also falsify that when logic is used to consider data that has been collected that this is not science.

James___ wrote:
He will argue that when logic is used to consider how data and physical events are considered that it is not science.

James___ wrote:
.To many baseball fans they would want to know if all of the stats that they keep in baseball and analyze ad nauseum are just random numbers. In sports such information is called metrics.
...deleted redundancy...

monckton wrote:
I have no argument,

monckton wrote:
I agree with the scientific consensus

monckton wrote:
on man made global warming aka climate change.

James___ wrote:
...More buzzwords

James___ wrote:
and circular arguments

James___ wrote:
ad nauseum.

James___ wrote:
Mustn't have an opinion of his own.

James___ wrote:
Just a HATER.

James___ wrote:
I think it's funny that litesong got banned for posting about climate change

James___ wrote:
while itn is only disruptive.

James___ wrote:
..Branner must be a very close friend of itn's which makes the point of this forum moot.
...deleted insults.

James___ wrote:
...More buzzwords and circular arguments ad nauseum. Mustn't have an opinion of his own. Just a HATER. I think it's funny that litesong got banned for posting about climate change while itn is only disruptive.
..Branner must be a very close friend of itn's which makes the point of this forum moot. Either that or itn needs a boyfriend and he's in here henpecking his boyfriends like a love starved woman. His behavior is completely irrational unless he's looking for a mate.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
...More buzzwords and circular arguments ad nauseum. Mustn't have an opinion of his own. Just a HATER. I think it's funny that litesong got banned for posting about climate change while itn is only disruptive.
..Branner must be a very close friend of itn's which makes the point of this forum moot. Either that or itn needs a boyfriend and he's in here henpecking his boyfriends like a love starved woman. His behavior is completely irrational unless he's looking for a mate.

James, by this time I would think that you'd be less bothered by Nightmare after he continues to show that he doesn't even know what statistical analysis is let alone have the ability to provide it.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
...More buzzwords and circular arguments ad nauseum. Mustn't have an opinion of his own. Just a HATER. I think it's funny that litesong got banned for posting about climate change while itn is only disruptive.
..Branner must be a very close friend of itn's which makes the point of this forum moot. Either that or itn needs a boyfriend and he's in here henpecking his boyfriends like a love starved woman. His behavior is completely irrational unless he's looking for a mate.

James, by this time I would think that you'd be less bothered by Nightmare after he continues to show that he doesn't even know what statistical analysis is let alone have the ability to provide it.

Into the Night wrote: Argument of the stone fallacy. I have provided it. Inversion fallacy.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Argument of the stone fallacy. I have provided it. Inversion fallacy.

Another use of words from "The Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart". It ain't working.

monckton wrote:
"Isn't it rich?...."

Wake wrote:

monckton wrote:
"Isn't it rich?...."

You'd think that he could take at least one step back and look at his own postings.

He has some things correct but it appears to be almost by accident. In another posting he argues that heat as we know it on Earth isn't light - it is infrared light..............

Wake wrote:


After you peruse these (which of course you have no intentions of doing) you may go out onto your protest march to murder one third of the poor people of the globe.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

monckton wrote:
"Isn't it rich?...."

You'd think that he could take at least one step back and look at his own postings.

He has some things correct but it appears to be almost by accident. In another posting he argues that heat as we know it on Earth isn't light - it is infrared light..............

Compositional error, Wake. Why do you insist on going this direction? I thought you knew better.

Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance. It does not have to be light at all. If it IS radiance, it is infrared light (or lower).

RenaissanceMan wrote:

Wake wrote:


After you peruse these (which of course you have no intentions of doing) you may go out onto your protest march to murder one third of the poor people of the globe.

Wake up. The world's poor would very much love to enjoy electricity, produced in most countries by burning coal, air conditioning, a motor scooter, much less a personal car, all of which we westerners take for granted.

The world's poor could care less about your grandiose pretenses to *save the world* by imposing carbon taxes, raising the price of all energy sources, and otherwise screwing everything up with Eco-Hypocrisy and fraud called *science*.

Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas, by far. Learn that and stop squealing like a Hillary. (wink, nudge)

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

monckton wrote:
"Isn't it rich?...."

You'd think that he could take at least one step back and look at his own postings.

He has some things correct but it appears to be almost by accident. In another posting he argues that heat as we know it on Earth isn't light - it is infrared light..............

Compositional error, Wake. Why do you insist on going this direction? I thought you knew better.

Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance. It does not have to be light at all. If it IS radiance, it is infrared light (or lower).

I was just thinking of your insane ignorance which you love so much to spread. Last year when I said that the California destructive fires occurred in such a manner that it had to be a firebug. That fires do not start going up-wind.

What did you say? That it was from the PG&E power lines.

Wake wrote:
In another instance you, from Seattle were telling ME who live here that PG&E transformers for underground power lines were also underground.

Wake wrote:
I got a good laugh over that as I bicycled past the surface transformer stations for underground power lines.

Wake wrote:
This year again we had fires starting; and again going upwind. This time they caught the firebug setting them as I noted these fires had to be set by. It was an illegal alien caught red handed.

Wake wrote:
Why don't you tell us a whole lot more about things you can't even conceive of but are more than willing to stick your stupidity into?

What this world needs is a whole lot less ignorance of the type you represent - where people with no knowledge like to pretend they have more than the world's most profound scientists.

Wake wrote:
From your positition of importance in an airplane hanger.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

monckton wrote:
"Isn't it rich?...."

You'd think that he could take at least one step back and look at his own postings.

He has some things correct but it appears to be almost by accident. In another posting he argues that heat as we know it on Earth isn't light - it is infrared light..............

Compositional error, Wake. Why do you insist on going this direction? I thought you knew better.

Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance. It does not have to be light at all. If it IS radiance, it is infrared light (or lower).

I was just thinking of your insane ignorance which you love so much to spread. Last year when I said that the California destructive fires occurred in such a manner that it had to be a firebug. That fires do not start going up-wind.

What did you say? That it was from the PG&E power lines.

The Sonoma fires WERE from the PG&E power lines.

Wake wrote:
In another instance you, from Seattle were telling ME who live here that PG&E transformers for underground power lines were also underground.

Why do you insist on lying, Wake? I never said any such thing.

Wake wrote:
I got a good laugh over that as I bicycled past the surface transformer stations for underground power lines.

Hope you enjoyed your laugh.

Wake wrote:
This year again we had fires starting; and again going upwind. This time they caught the firebug setting them as I noted these fires had to be set by. It was an illegal alien caught red handed.

Good. Hope they nail his hide to the wall.

Wake wrote:
Why don't you tell us a whole lot more about things you can't even conceive of but are more than willing to stick your stupidity into?

What this world needs is a whole lot less ignorance of the type you represent - where people with no knowledge like to pretend they have more than the world's most profound scientists.

Science isn't scientists, Wake. Science is set of falsifiable theories. Consensus and supporting evidence aren't used in science.

You are assuming that all scientists have the same opinion. Bigotry.

Wake wrote:
From your positition of importance in an airplane hanger.

Doesn't matter what my credentials are, or yours. Credentials mean nothing on forums. My aircraft work is my hobby, dumbass. I've already told you.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

monckton wrote:
"Isn't it rich?...."

You'd think that he could take at least one step back and look at his own postings.

He has some things correct but it appears to be almost by accident. In another posting he argues that heat as we know it on Earth isn't light - it is infrared light..............

Compositional error, Wake. Why do you insist on going this direction? I thought you knew better.

Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance. It does not have to be light at all. If it IS radiance, it is infrared light (or lower).

I was just thinking of your insane ignorance which you love so much to spread. Last year when I said that the California destructive fires occurred in such a manner that it had to be a firebug. That fires do not start going up-wind.

What did you say? That it was from the PG&E power lines.

The Sonoma fires WERE from the PG&E power lines.

Wake wrote:
In another instance you, from Seattle were telling ME who live here that PG&E transformers for underground power lines were also underground.

Why do you insist on lying, Wake? I never said any such thing.

Wake wrote:
I got a good laugh over that as I bicycled past the surface transformer stations for underground power lines.

Hope you enjoyed your laugh.

Wake wrote:
This year again we had fires starting; and again going upwind. This time they caught the firebug setting them as I noted these fires had to be set by. It was an illegal alien caught red handed.

Good. Hope they nail his hide to the wall.

Wake wrote:
Why don't you tell us a whole lot more about things you can't even conceive of but are more than willing to stick your stupidity into?

What this world needs is a whole lot less ignorance of the type you represent - where people with no knowledge like to pretend they have more than the world's most profound scientists.

Science isn't scientists, Wake. Science is set of falsifiable theories. Consensus and supporting evidence aren't used in science.

You are assuming that all scientists have the same opinion. Bigotry.

Wake wrote:
From your positition of importance in an airplane hanger.

Doesn't matter what my credentials are, or yours. Credentials mean nothing on forums. My aircraft work is my hobby, dumbass. I've already told you.

The Sonoma fires occurred EXACTLY as these did: starting from the south and starting at a driving time from one to the other. Going upwind and at equal distances. But you're too stupid to be able to figure that out.

Wake wrote:
PG&E was nothing more than a source of insurance to cover the costs of rebuilding. Your kind of plan.

Wake wrote:
You grow funnier by the minute since after you said that when they plant underground utility lines that the transformers are underground as well that I actually took pictures of those transformer stations above ground and sealed from molestation.

Wake wrote:
Your pouring out one lie after the other gets better all the time.

Wake wrote:
You know so little about real science that it is preposterous for you to so much as give an opinion let along your stupid hard and fast rules.

Wake wrote:
Tell me you POS - falsify the age of the Universe.

Into the Night wrote: All of his usual stupidity

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: All of his usual stupidity

You are a dumbass and will never grow out of it. You and monckton are two of a kind.

CoolCucumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: All of his usual stupidity

You are a dumbass and will never grow out of it. You and monckton are two of a kind.

THEY KILLED ALL THOSE PEOPLE FOR MONEY!

To the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate of the United States of America,

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
https://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/#/AE

Only rising.

Wake wrote:

CoolCucumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: All of his usual stupidity

You are a dumbass and will never grow out of it. You and monckton are two of a kind.

THEY KILLED ALL THOSE PEOPLE FOR MONEY!

To the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate of the United States of America,

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
https://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/#/AE

Only rising.

Hey, look, another of nightmare's buddies with their insanity. You are neither and architect nor engineer. You certainly know nothing about the event surrounding 9/11 nor the total and complete investigation of it.

Into the Night wrote:
As usual, Wake, you are completely out to lunch.

I never argued that explosives were used on the WTC. I argue quite the opposite, in fact.

No further waste of money and time is required research the WTC collapse. All three buildings collapsed due to fire, as all steel lattice construction does when exposed to large uncontrolled fires.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
As usual, Wake, you are completely out to lunch.

I never argued that explosives were used on the WTC. I argue quite the opposite, in fact.

No further waste of money and time is required research the WTC collapse. All three buildings collapsed due to fire, as all steel lattice construction does when exposed to large uncontrolled fires.

I never said you did.

Wake wrote:
But in a like ignorant and totally stupid manner you're telling us about PG&E power lines when you live in Seattle and the fires occurred in Sonoma County, CA. What sort of fool does that?

Wake wrote:
After saying that when you have underground power lines that transformer facilities are also underground you turned right around and said that you never said that.

Wake wrote:
You are as crackpot as the 9/11ers and their FBI theories.

Wake wrote:
I'd say you weren't playing with a full deck but you don't have any cards at all.