25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

[Moviefan-2]

The questions on that page do not state what you claim, they ask about the ratio of natural causes to anthropogenic changes between 1920 and 1940.
Your claims are once again bullshit.

Wrong again.

Here is the question that was asked: What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?

I've got a newsflash for you. The words "since the mid-20th century" don't refer to the period from 1920 to 1940.

You really are illiterate.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You provided a survey which supports the claim that their is consensus among scientists on climate change.
You also provided a claim from a shoddy mathematician.

Those are the only times you presented support material for you claims, and both of those were found false.

I'm sorry but 52% is not a "97% consensus."

And von Storch's study that showed that more than 98% of the computer model predictions got it wrong has not been disputed.

Actually, he is considered to be a leading researcher in this field. And in case you've forgotten, you have produced nothing that challenged his findings.

Finally, I must say that a guy who didn't know that 100 minus 52 equals 48 (see post 331) probably shouldn't be accusing anyone else of being a "shoddy mathematician." :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

Wrong again.

Here is the question that was asked: What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?

Only 0.4% said there was no anthropogenic climate change.
The rest said they either didn't know or there was anthropogenic climate change.

You claimed this:

It found 66 per cent support for the hypothesis -- once again, not a consensus.

Yet only 0.4% said they believed there was no anthropogenic climate change since the mid 20th century.

And nowhere was there a question about whether they believed in the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm sorry but 52% is not a "97% consensus."

You are relying on the words of the Heartland institute on what you admitted was a poorly phrased question.
The author of the study directly contradicts your claim, are you calling him a liar?
Are you really linking to a paper and then calling the author of that paper a liar?

We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

And von Storch's study that showed that more than 98% of the computer model predictions got it wrong has not been disputed.

Sure it has.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5252307&viewfull=1#post5252307

 

[basketcase]

LOL. Apparently, the complete absence of any evidence isn't an issue. :thumb:
....

So explain why so many in the scientific community support it then.

 

[basketcase]

What a surprise -- more insults, no substance.

As much as you don't like it, the facts are all on my side.

You really think that is an insult?

I guess it is as I am insulting your non-theory but in the scientific world, ridiculous statements deserve to be ridiculed.

 

[basketcase]

The problem is basketcase thinks everyone who prefers reality over fantasy is a "conspiracy theorist."....

In several of these threads spanning what, a couple years, I'm still waiting for you to act scientifically and suggest a hypothesis we can test.

 

[basketcase]

And I can respect that. The problem is that the "solutions" offered in response to that theory don't work, even if you assume the theory is true. If AGW is the prime mover in climate change, the energy efficiency approach is not the way to go. The alternative fuels method is not the way to go. Even putting the two together doesn't work. Energy efficiency simply encourages people to use use the same amount of or more energy to be more comfortable than before. Alternative energy sources are not giving us the kind of efficiency we need to replace fossil fuels. Both together are barely more than feel good window dressing.

Assuming the science is right, the solution(s) are still bullshit. They reek of command economy theories rather than realistic market economic theories. Even the carbon credit economy, as an attempt to use market forces to solve the putative problem, was a typically terrible command economy attempt to ape a market economy.

I completely agree that energy efficiency is a small part of the solution. The reason it is discussed is that it requires very little buy in or lifestyle alterations from the public. Unfortunately in a democratic system, we have no real way to implement any solutions until the mindset of the public understands what is actually required. Judging by the likes of MF, that understanding is a long way away. And even once people actually conceptualize the needs, we are extremely resistant to change.

Despite your assertions, the solutions suggested by the scientific community absolutely work. The problem is the only ones that our political leadership are willing to accept are minimal.

 

[basketcase]

Who's lively hood depends on promoting AWG,...is not a fantasy.

FAST

And the scientists who's livelihood depends on denying AGW? I guess they get a pass from you because you like what they say.

 

[basketcase]

I do believe the survey and its finding that only 52 per cent of respondents support the hypothesis of man-made global warming....

And damn what the experts in the field say.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Only 0.4% said there was no anthropogenic climate change.
The rest said they either didn't know or there was anthropogenic climate change.

You claimed this:


Yet only 0.4% said they believed there was no anthropogenic climate change since the mid 20th century.

And nowhere was there a question about whether they believed in the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

I hate to break this to you, but someone who answers that we don't know what is causing changes in the temperature is not voicing support for the hypothesis of man-made global warming.

The responses to the question that asked whether man-made greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of warming since 1950 (which is the hypothesis of man-made global warming, you twit) found there was 66% support. That's not a consensus.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And damn what the experts in the field say.

According to NASA and Naomi Oreskes, the membership of the American Meteorological Society is made up of experts in this area.

Rather than looking for a show of hands, perhaps we should focus on the evidence and the fact that the predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sure it has.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5252307&viewfull=1#post5252307

Bull. There is nothing in your post that challenges the University of Hamburg's 2013 study other than your own gibberish. And since we know from your posting history that there is absolutely no way you have actually looked at the University of Hamburg study, your rebuttal is completely baseless.

Indeed, since you are incapable of basic literacy and numeracy (I'm still trying to figure out how you thought the period from 1920 to 1940 came after 1950) and have publicly admitted that you know nothing about the temperature trends in the 20th century, I hardly think you are qualified to challenge the report's findings.

Meanwhile, I see you continue to evade the question about the IPCC's predictions.

 

[Frankfooter]

I hate to break this to you, but someone who answers that we don't know what is causing changes in the temperature is not voicing support for the hypothesis of man-made global warming.

Only 0.4% claimed to fully not believe in Anthropogenic climate change.
That's all.

By the way, this is another study where you are lying about the results.
The author of the paper says there is 84% support for the consensus, not 66%.

Once again you are lying about the results of a survey.

The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

Why are you lying about this study as well?
That's twice you've lied about the study results.

 

[Frankfooter]

Bull. There is nothing in your post that challenges the University of Hamburg's 2013 study

Link the study, please.
I get this feeling you are lying about this third source as well.

 

[Moviefan-2]

By the way, this is another study where you are lying about the results.
The author of the paper says there is 84% support for the consensus, not 66%.

Wrong again. "Tied" with natural causes does not count as support for the hypothesis that greenhouse gases are the "dominant" cause of warming.

There were 66% of respondents who supported the hypothesis of man-made global warming.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Link the study, please.
I get this feeling you are lying about this third source as well.

I knew you had no idea what was in it.

Here you go:

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/08/13/can-climate-models-explain-the-15-year-slowdown-in-warming/

http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming

By the way, if you're going to accuse me of lying, you're going to have to find something to back it up. Maybe you want to start by letting us know how the search is going for the IPCC prediction of 15 years of "flattening" temperatures.

 

[FAST]

And the scientists who's livelihood depends on denying AGW? I guess they get a pass from you because you like what they say.

Didn't say that,...and have actually said they are much the same,...you are starting to sound a lot like FOOTER,...and that's NOT a compliment.

FAST

 

[barnacler]

Let's change this repetitive thread up a little, if anyone is interested.

Does anyone still think it is IMPERATIVE that we IMMEDIATELY do something about the climate to avoid TOTAL DISASTER at some unknown time?

And if so, do those same people have a plan for the other possibility: global Cooling as a result of volcanic activity, which is a historical fact ( LOL I almost said HAS been a Historical fact IN THE PAST)?

 

[nuprin001]

I completely agree that energy efficiency is a small part of the solution. The reason it is discussed is that it requires very little buy in or lifestyle alterations from the public. Unfortunately in a democratic system, we have no real way to implement any solutions until the mindset of the public understands what is actually required. Judging by the likes of MF, that understanding is a long way away. And even once people actually conceptualize the needs, we are extremely resistant to change.

Despite your assertions, the solutions suggested by the scientific community absolutely work. The problem is the only ones that our political leadership are willing to accept are minimal.

Missing in that: solutions proposed by economists who actually study it.

Scientists' solutions are often mechanical. And yes, they do work. Curtail the population, make energy more expensive, prevent people from using too much energy. Actually implementing some of those solutions... unpleasant side effects. Which is why politicians aren't willing to implement them. Some of the environmental economists' ideas aren't much more palatable, politically, but they're a little more realistic in terms of human interaction.