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

[Moviefan-2]

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.

I'm assuming this means you think a 98% failure rate is acceptable.

More to the point, you keep evading the fact that the IPCC predictions that were based on the models were spectacularly wrong. That's probably because you don't actually know what the IPCC predicted.

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.

Correct translation: Researchers who claim 52% support is the same thing as a "97% consensus" are environmental zealots.

The issue isn't whether or not they agree with me. The issue is that their claims aren't supported by their own data.

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.

LMFAO.

Still trying to create imaginary evidence of "man-made warming" by plotting numbers from different graphs that used different baselines. How pathetic. Among other things, you have once again proved that you didn't understand your own skepticalscience link.

I guess I can't entirely blame you for trying to create imaginary "man-made warming." There is certainly no real evidence of any man-made warming.

 

[PornAddict]

Is it me or is Frank actually retarded?

Yeah Frank is retarded. Just by looking at this graph proves global warming is full of shit!


http://www.newclimatemodel.com/update-2014-visual-proof-of-global-cooling/

 

[K Douglas]

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.

Yes sadly they have allowed the politics to corrupt the science. At this point you cannot trust NASA-GISS, NOAA to be honest and straight forward about climate change.
You keep parroting the talking points that 2014 was the warmest year on record and 2015 is going to break it. What they fail to say (Gavin Schmidt) is that he is only 38% convinced it is the warmest year on record. I'm not kidding - 38%!!!!! You'd have better odds flipping a coin.
Not only is this sad, it is downright scary. That they have been able to convince so many scientific publications, academies, governments and citizens (mostly weak minded Liberals) and they are wasting trillions of dollars trying to force renewables down our throats.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Yes sadly they have allowed the politics to corrupt the science. At this point you cannot trust NASA-GISS, NOAA to be honest and straight forward about climate change.
You keep parroting the talking points that 2014 was the warmest year on record and 2015 is going to break it. What they fail to say (Gavin Schmidt) is that he is only 38% convinced it is the warmest year on record. I'm not kidding - 38%!!!!! You'd have better odds flipping a coin.

Indeed. Schmidt conceded to the Daily Mail in the U.K. that NASA was lying when it made its definitive statements about 2014 being the warmest year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

If actual evidence existed, there wouldn't be a need to tell these nose stretchers.

 

[basketcase]

I'm assuming this means you think a 98% failure rate is acceptable.

More to the point, you keep evading the fact that the IPCC predictions that were based on the models were spectacularly wrong. That's probably because you don't actually know what the IPCC predicted.
...

You really are a groggy disciple. First you post graphs you think supports your viewpoint. It turns out that the observed data from the past several years fit the projections but you still continue to make up bullshit about the models being 'spectacularly wrong'.

Are you the same way in other areas? The weather man says we will get 2-4 mm of rain and when we get 2.5 mm you say the weather man was spectacularly wrong? Your accountant estimates your tax refund will be around $1,200. When you get a refund of $1,170 do you fire him? When you ask the barber to cut an inch off your hair and he cuts that much do you say he is a spectacularly wrong barber? Actually I bet that you're the type to send a steak back because you order rare and they give you rare.

 

[basketcase]

Yes sadly they have allowed the politics to corrupt the science. At this point you cannot trust NASA-GISS, NOAA to be honest and straight forward about climate change....

Ahh, scientists are part of a conspiracy. That sounds reasonable.

 

[Frankfooter]

Still trying to create imaginary evidence of "man-made warming" by plotting numbers from different graphs that used different baselines. How pathetic. Among other things, you have once again proved that you didn't understand your own skepticalscience link.

I guess I can't entirely blame you for trying to create imaginary "man-made warming." There is certainly no real evidence of any man-made warming.

Different 'baselines'?
What total nonsense.

Go ahead, give us the baseline used in the wrong IPCC chart you like to post, the one that wasn't released.
Then tell us what baseline I requested you use.

Then for bonus points, plot the correct baseline points.

Just give me a few minutes to make some popcorn, this is probably going to be as entertaining as catching you lying about studies.

 

[FAST]

Go ahead, give us the baseline used in the wrong IPCC chart you like to post, the one that wasn't released.

OH,...you mean the one that "leaked" before they got a chance to tweak it to make themselves look better.

Done all the time in financials,...its called "creative" accounting,...in this case,...its called "creative" job assurances.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

OH,...you mean the one that "leaked" before they got a chance to tweak it to make themselves look better.

Done all the time in financials,...its called "creative" accounting,...in this case,...its called "creative" job assurances.

FAST

Do you have any evidence for this claim or are you just once again full of shit?

 

[FAST]

Do you have any evidence for this claim or are you just once again full of shit?

Just common sense,...but we all know BOYS don't have much of that until after puberty,...so I guess you will have to wait a bit to understand.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

First you post graphs you think supports your viewpoint. It turns out that the observed data from the past several years fit the projections but you still continue to make up bullshit about the models being 'spectacularly wrong'.

Let's examine this in a bit more detail.

I have said the IPCC's predictions (which were based on the average of the models) were spectacularly wrong. All of the graphs confirm that.

Indeed, Basketcase and Groggy have gone to extreme lengths to try to create imaginary "warming" on the IPCC graphs because they know the graphs don't support the IPCC's predictions.

As far as "the models" go, I have always fully acknowledged that less than two per cent of the models correctly predicted current temperatures. However, more than 98 per cent of the models got it wrong. That's why the models have a 98 per cent failure rate.

But suit yourself, Basketcase.

You seem to want to believe that "the models" have forecast that huge increases in man-made CO2 emissions won't cause any warming. If that's what you believe the models are predicting, what are you worried about?

 

[Frankfooter]

Let's examine this in a bit more detail.

I have said the IPCC's predictions (which were based on the average of the models) were spectacularly wrong. All of the graphs confirm that.

Indeed, Basketcase and Groggy have gone to extreme lengths to try to create imaginary "warming" on the IPCC graphs because they know the graphs don't support the IPCC's predictions.

As far as "the models" go, I have always fully acknowledged that less than two per cent of the models correctly predicted current temperatures. However, more than 98 per cent of the models got it wrong. That's why the models have a 98 per cent failure rate.

But suit yourself, Basketcase.

You seem to want to believe that "the models" have forecast that huge increases in man-made CO2 emissions won't cause any warming. If that's what you believe the models are predicting, what are you worried about?

False.

You continue to refuse to admit that your claims are based on 3 year old numbers and the recent numbers refute all of your claims.
You refuse to admit that the charts you continue to post are out of date.

In short, you need to lie to make your claims.
You can't honestly make the claim the charts are wrong with the recent data.

You are lying.

 

[FAST]

False.

,... are based on 3 year old numbers and the recent numbers refute all of your claims.

Since you are still just a BOY,...I don't mind helping you out,... again.

The numbers for 3 years ago can't be wrong,...they simply had to be changed by the Unemployables to make their predictions look better,...

Please let me know if you need my, or any other adults help again.

FAST

 

[asuran]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/opinions/sutter-climate-sea-level-facts/index.html

Rising sea levels due to climate change.

There will be those who will keep saying it's not real or it won't happen but only until it happens and then it will be too late.

 

[FAST]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/opinions/sutter-climate-sea-level-facts/index.html

Rising sea levels due to climate change.

There will be those who will keep saying it's not real or it won't happen but only until it happens and then it will be too late.

Did you actually look graph #1,...tell me what you see,...???

FAST

 

[asuran]

Did you actually look graph #1,...tell me what you see,...???

FAST

I see cumulative sea level with a rising trend with a steeper curve the last 5-10 years of gathered data.

Now I ask you back, in a concise sentence, can you tell me what you see in return?


One of the things when looking at data/evidence is we have to look at the big picture and look for correlating clues from different graphs from multiple other sources.
Think of it as finding evidence in say, a murder case. Just because you found the weapon with finger prints does not mean those prints are from the killer, tho chances are high. You need supporting evidence such as witness, motive, and a few more correlating evidence to get to the big picture and then the conclusion.
It is always very simple to refute certain data as being skewed. But when you look at the big picture, that is when everything will clear up.

It's just easy to look at one graph out of a few of an article to say that that didn't make sense, of course it doesn't on itself. But if you look at the whole thing (all the other graphs and supporting evidence) you will understand better.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You refuse to admit that the charts you continue to post are out of date.

Nonsense. It was your twin brother, Basketcase, who wanted to focus on the one IPCC graph.

I have posted a number of graphs, including ones that go to 2014. The ones that run to 2014 also confirm that the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Ahh, scientists are part of a conspiracy. That sounds reasonable.

Revenge of the nerds!

(I agree with your sentiment. Can't be a conspiracy of lowly scientists that are forced to work with limited budgets and banking on their most important asset besides their brain power - their objectivity and credibility).

 

[GPIDEAL]

Nonsense. It was your twin brother, Basketcase, who wanted to focus on the one IPCC graph.

I have posted a number of graphs, including ones that go to 2014. The ones that run to 2014 also confirm that the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

The actual is still a rising trend.

Anecdotally, we see raging forest and brush fires everywhere and droughts in warmer regions. Something is happening.

Even if it isn't primarily AGW, wouldn't it be wise to adopt anti-climate change measures to avoid exacerbating the problem?

 

[Frankfooter]

Nonsense. It was your twin brother, Basketcase, who wanted to focus on the one IPCC graph.

I have posted a number of graphs, including ones that go to 2014. The ones that run to 2014 also confirm that the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

The present global anomaly is 0.83ºC.
That makes that chart right on the money.

You are an idiot!