President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
Ok, I ask you again about your threshold for accuracy.
Answer these questions first.
Which report did it come from?
What page?
Which models does it project?
What year was that model?
Is it the most recent model?
What are the numbers used in the graph?
What is the last year of climate data entered?
Where is the data posted?
Is it included in the model listing in this chapter?
I don't care that its moviefans chart, if you are going to continue to claim that its inaccurate, even when shown that the the numbers are right on the money now, you need to provide the context and data to prove this claim.
Show me the source for this chart and we can look at the full context.
Otherwise you are not being accurate or consistent.
F*ck you really are dumber than sh*t.
Let me simplify it some more, below are the possible scenarios:
-Data is real meaningful data, plotted actual aligns perfectly with predicted, your assertion of "quite" accurate is correct
-data is real meaningful data, plotted actual shows a large divergence with predicted, your assertion of "quite" accurate is not correct
-Data is fake data, plotted actual aligns perfectly with predicted, your assertion of "quite" accurate is correct
-Data is fake data, plotted actual shows a large divergence with predicted, your assertion of "quite" accurate is not correct
whether the chart is "quite accurate" or not is invariant to the the data being real or fake.
You said the charts where "quite accurate", I used the data points in those charts to assert otherwise.
You failed miserably here.
You failed to answer the basic questions:
Since you 'used the data points' in 'those charts', please detail the data.
Give us the years, the projections of the years and the reality.
Note which model, which year the projection was made and which measurement sets the reality numbers came from.
You didn't do your homework.
But I'll help you, only to see if you can learn.
First, the original chart is from here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
But the chart that moviefan used is not.
Its from the 'leaked' report, it wasn't the final chart nor were those the published numbers.
In other words, you were suckered and are making charges about the numbers that weren't final.
Do your homework, go to the IPCC site and get the official numbers, not the denier site chart before you go off on some stupid rant about accuracy without doing your homework to find out if you are using the correct numbers.
Until you do, you look like a total idiot for accusing the IPCC of inaccuracy when you are totally fucking guilty of not checking your sources and guilty of not using the real numbers.
Idiot.
You've been complaining about 'accuracy' while using a chart you didn't bother to check to see if it was 'accurate'.
That is what is retarded here.
That's what you get for listening to one of Moviefan's arguments.
The real chart has similar numbers, except for a few of the numbers you noted as 'inaccurate', notably the reported 'actual' data.
Comparing footer to retarded people,...is an insult to retarded people,...
Basketcase said it best,...he has a school yard intellect,...AND currently at a school yard male development stage as well,...
The question is,...are we talking kindergarten,...or grade school.
FAST
It is not politically correct to call Frank a retard...but he is mentally challenge.
I sure as hell wouldn't. I remember "The Limits to Growth" - supposedly the world's greatest scientists all proclaiming that we were going to run out of EVERYTHING very soon.
DEAD WRONG. Not just didn't get it right - no, the truth was the OPPOSITE. Within 5 years of its publication the world was awash in everything and commodity prices crashed for two decades.
Experts are fine if they are truly scientific, but when the scientific become totally riddled with politics, funding, career advancement - then no, I have no faith whatsoever in it.
I find that the errors in these situations is ignoring the possibility of adjustments mid-stream to new conditions that alters behaviour. For instance , they have already found that the CO2 take-up from plant life on the planet is exceeding expectations.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ow-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/
Everything these alarmists have said would happen, haven't. Sea levels are not rising even close to their predictions. Arctic sea ice has not disappeared during the summer melt. Global temperatures are not rising at even close to the lowest IPCC predictions. In fact warming has ceased for 17 years. Or as alarmists like to call it, have paused. Droughts, flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes are not any more frequent or severe than they were in the past hundred years. Polar bears are not becoming extinct, in fact they are growing in population.
The Inconvenient Truth is really an ironic title since it describes in essence what the climate change advocates face today - their theories being debunked by reality. Found another great website - Judith Curry's blog http://judithcurry.com/
The Inconvenient Truth is really an ironic title since it describes in essence what the climate change advocates face today - their theories being debunked by reality. Found another great website - Judith Curry's blog http://judithcurry.com/
You might want to read up on that.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../27/daily-mail-telegraph-wrong-arctic-sea-ice
Proves my point the summer ice hasn't disappeared. In fact it's been growing the past couple of years. But Al Gore told us it would be gone by now. How this guy still get any audience is beyond me - he was wrong about everything.
You sound about as smart as moviefan, who made the same claim the posted a chart that proved he was wrong as evidence.
Same basic quote:
Same incredibly wrong bullshit.
Wrong again. Let's review this one more time.
---
Here is what the IPCC predicted:
---
Here are the results:
IPCC:
Met Office:
University of Alabama in Huntsville:
Every chart that plots the observed data against the models shows the IPCC's predictions have been completely off the mark. There is no dispute that the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
Chart #1 - right on the money.
Chart #2 - (pre-released chart, not the official chart) even so the final numbers are right on the money and the final chart is quite accurate all the way through.
Chart #3 - (unsourced, sigh) but still dead accurate, with the latest NOAA numbers saying we are at 0.83ºC, which is fucking close to that 0.8.47 number halfway through the year.
Chart #4 - unsourced, but looks like denier bullshit, trying to use upper atmosphere numbers against projections for surface temperatures, which is total bullshit.
Thanks for playing, idiot.
3 charts on the money (including the not correct use of a pre-released chart)
1 chart full of shit.
Thanks for confirming that you can't read a chart.
Chart #2 - (pre-released chart, not the official chart) even so the final numbers are right on the money and the final chart is quite accurate all the way through.
Chart #3 - (unsourced, sigh) but still dead accurate, with the latest NOAA numbers saying we are at 0.83ºC, which is fucking close to that 0.8.47 number halfway through the year.
Chart #4 - unsourced, but looks like denier bullshit, trying to use upper atmosphere numbers against projections for surface temperatures, which is total bullshit.
Thanks for playing, idiot.
3 charts on the money (including the not correct use of a pre-released chart)
1 chart full of shit.
Thanks for confirming that you can't read a chart.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
You keep forgetting that you don't know how to read a graph.
Hmm. Sounds like someone is bitter that the Ministry of Truthers at NOAA don't have any way to rewrite the satellite data.
All of the charts confirm that the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
And, frankly, the fact that you think the first chart of IPCC predictions is "right on the money" proves that you are insane.
Ahh, back to the graph that where the past 3 years fit withing the predictions.
IPCC:
