President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

[Moviefan-2]

Ahh, back to the graph that where the past 3 years fit withing the predictions.

I've never disputed the fact that less than 2% of the models predicted current temperatures.

However, more than 98% of the models failed to predict the current temperatures.

As for the IPCC's predictions, which were based on the averages from the models, they were spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

You keep forgetting that you don't know how to read a graph.

Here is a comparison between your second unofficial, pre-release leaked chart and the official one released by the IPCC.

The reasons why idiots like you don't know the difference and continue to use this one is posted clearly here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html

Your continual use of this chart is yet another example of you lying.
You know its wrong to continue to use it (even though the chart proves very accurate over the last few years), yet continue to do so.
Just stop it.

 

[Frankfooter]

As for the IPCC's predictions, which were based on the averages from the models, they were spectacularly wrong.

Except that they aren't.
The last three years of that chart (even though its not the official release) are still fucking accurate.
In fact, with 2015 now at 0.83ºC, that chart is actually too conservative by a touch.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your continual use of this chart is yet another example of you lying.

You know its wrong to continue to use it (even though the chart proves very accurate over the last few years), yet continue to do so.
Just stop it.

Nonsense. The reason I prefer the first graph is that it is easier to read.

If you want to use the second one, that's fine with me. They both confirm the same thing -- the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nonsense. The reason I prefer the first graph is that it is easier to read.

If you want to use the second one, that's fine with me. They both confirm the same thing -- the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

You can't read charts at all, can you?
Try plotting 0.83ºC for 2015 in the first chart and tell me where that number lies in their projections.

As usual, you are spectacularly wrong and too stupid to even know it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You can't read charts at all, can you?
Try plotting 0.83ºC for 2015 in the first chart and tell me where that number lies in their projections.

LMFAO. :biggrin1:

The guy who likes to add numbers from completely different data sets is now accusing me of not knowing how to read charts.

This is like being lectured by Councillor Rob Ford on the importance of maintaining a healthy weight.

(What's even funnier is that Groggy/Frankfooter clearly didn't understand anything that was being debated in the skepticalscience.com link above, even though he was the one who posted it. Hilarious.)

 

[K Douglas]

Skeptical science is a website by John Cook he of the bogus 97% consensus crowd. Total liberal propaganda. Nothing skeptical about it.

We all know that there has been a pause in global temperatures for the past 2 decades. Most in the AGW crowd admit that, albeit using excuses such as aerosols. If you can't even accept that there's no use even arguing. That is true denial.

Done.

 

[basketcase]

I've never disputed the fact that less than 2% of the models predicted current temperatures.

However, more than 98% of the models failed to predict the current temperatures.

As for the IPCC's predictions, which were based on the averages from the models, they were spectacularly wrong.

Amazing the bullshit you come up with when caught out. You're as bad as groggy.

Fact is the GRAPH YOU PROVIDED show that the predictions match the actual observed. IPPC numbers from 2012-2014 all fit within all of the models of that graph.

 

[basketcase]

LMFAO. :biggrin1:

The guy who likes to add numbers from completely different data sets is now accusing me of not knowing how to read charts....

Plot 0.5 or 0.68 and they both fit within all those projections.

 

[Frankfooter]

LMFAO. :biggrin1:

The guy who likes to add numbers from completely different data sets is now accusing me of not knowing how to read charts.

Its quite obvious you can't read a chart or understand the numbers.
You look at the numbers on the older charts you provide, but don't have the smarts to be able to graph the recent numbers.
You just aren't smart enough to look at those charts and put dots there for the recent temperatures.
As a result, you just look like a total idiot who keeps posting charts that prove himself wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Skeptical science is a website by John Cook he of the bogus 97% consensus crowd.

You mean like that NASA crowd that backs the consensus argument?
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Or how about the AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the US?
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

They back the same claims as John Cook.

And don't forget, that moviefan made the same claim as you just did and was shown to have directly lied about the results of two studies, claiming they disproved the consensus claim when both of their authors stated the studies backed the consensus claim.

Now you are done.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Fact is the GRAPH YOU PROVIDED show that the predictions match the actual observed. IPPC numbers from 2012-2014 all fit within all of the models of that graph.

LMFAO.

What the graph actually shows is that the overwhelming majority of the models over predicted the temperature increases -- in the majority of cases, by enormous amounts. According to the University of Hamburg's research, more than 98% of the models failed to predict current temperatures.

Furthermore, the IPCC's predictions were based on the averages of the models. Those predictions were spectacularly wrong. There is no dispute on that point.

Groggy's preferred graph confirms the same thing. According to the IPCC graph provided by Groggy, the temperatures in the 21st century have been relatively flat -- nothing at all like the skyrocketing increases predicted by the IPCC.

You have already proven that you don't know how to read a graph (and, like Groggy, that you don't know what the word "baseline" means). Clearly, this topic is over your head. You would be well advised to stick to subjects you understand and leave anthropogenic global warming to others.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And don't forget, that moviefan made the same claim as you just did and was shown to have directly lied about the results of two studies, claiming they disproved the consensus claim when both of their authors stated the studies backed the consensus claim.

Interestingly, Groggy's false claim about my having "lied" is actually built on nothing but lies.

Contrary to what Groggy stated, I never said the "authors" of those studies -- who are environmental zealots -- disputed the claims of a consensus. I said the actual results of their studies prove there is no consensus.

Indeed, when I challenged Groggy to provide a clear definition of anthropogenic climate change (on which there is supposedly a "consensus"), he refused to answer the question. Confirming that I am right.

Groggy/Franky isn't much of a champion for AGW when all of his arguments are based on lies and ignorance.

 

[Frankfooter]

LMFAO.

What the graph actually shows is that the overwhelming majority of the models over predicted the temperature increases -- in the majority of cases, by enormous amounts. According to the University of Hamburg's research, more than 98% of the models failed to predict current temperatures.

Are you lying about another study?
You already lied about two others.

And you really can't plot a number on a graph, can you?
'Cuz if you could, you'd realize what a fucking idiot you are to keep trying the same basic and wrong claim.

 

[Frankfooter]

Interestingly, Groggy's false claim about my having "lied" is actually built on nothing but lies.

Contrary to what Groggy stated, I never said the "authors" of those studies -- who are environmental zealots -- disputed the claims of a consensus. I said the actual results of their studies prove there is no consensus.

You claimed the two studies disproved the consensus claim, when the authors themselves reported both studies confirmed the claim.
You lied about the findings of both studies, all you are doing is confirming you lied about the findings.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You claimed the two studies disproved the consensus claim, when the authors themselves reported both studies confirmed the claim.

The authors were bullshitting you.

My conclusions weren't based on the authors' B.S. They were based on the actual findings, which proved the claims of a "consensus" are total crap.

Perhaps you can clarify this matter for us. When you talk about the support for anthropogenic climate change, are you referring to the IPCC position that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950?

Or does your consensus include researchers who don't believe man-made emissions are the dominant cause of warming?

Please answer the question.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Actually, let's ask a more precise question.

There are climate researchers who believe man-made emissions only have a miniscule affect on the Earth's climate and that they are nothing to worry about.

Are those researchers part of the "consensus" on anthropogenic climate change?

Yes or no.

 

[basketcase]

LMFAO.

What the graph actually shows is that the overwhelming majority of the models over predicted the temperature increases -- in the majority of cases, by enormous amounts....

Strange. I always thought that when observed data fits within the projections, it means the projections are reasonable. I guess in your fake science world things work differently.

Face it. The graph YOU POSTED makes your claims a joke.

 

[basketcase]

Interestingly, Groggy's false claim about my having "lied" is actually built on nothing but lies.

Contrary to what Groggy stated, I never said the "authors" of those studies -- who are environmental zealots -- ....

Environmental Zealot - translation: Some of the many people with a scientific background and who have actually studied the topic in depth that dare disagree with you.

 

[Frankfooter]

The authors were bullshitting you.

My conclusions weren't based on the authors' B.S. They were based on the actual findings, which proved the claims of a "consensus" are total crap.
.

This is really quite hilarious.

Now you are claiming that you are smarter then climate researchers, and that only you can find 'errors' in their reports while you can't even read a fucking graph?
As an idiot who can't plot new data in an existing chart, how can you possibly believe you are smart enough to find errors in papers you can't even understand?

You really are a full on sufferer of Dunning-Kruger, aren't you?

Somehow you think you are smarter then all of NASA, all of AAAS and even smarter then all of the IPCC.
Yet you can't plot new data in an existing chart.

What a fucking clown!

I know you are stupid, and technically illiterate, but there must be a way to give you a mirror to your own stupidity.
Here's a really easy challenge for a high school student, but obviously way too hard for you.

Take the not official, pre-release chart from the IPCC that you favour, the one that wasn't released officially, and chart the NOAA or NASA numbers for the years 2012, 2013, 2014 and even 2015's to date number of 0.83ºC anomaly on that chart.

Plot those numbers and see if you are smart enough to post it online somewhere and link it here.
Surely someone who thinks they are as smart as you think you are should have no problem adding four numbers to a chart.

Can you do it, or are you a total idiot?