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

[Frankfooter]

"Reported and experienced globally"??

Only in your dreams, Groggy.

Idiot.

Once again you proved that you can't read a fucking chart.
Just copied and pasted yet another idiotic chart from wattsupwiththat, another oil funded lobbyist site.

If you could read the chart you'd note that the measurements are upper atmospheric, not surface, as detailed by the fact that the were reported by weather balloons and satellites, not surface measurements.

What it does is show why you are the perfect sucker for the oil industries shell games. You aren't smart enough to be able to really judge any of this science, not smart enough to read a chart, not smart enough to note that the latest global surface temperature is 0.83ºC, which is actually right on the red line of that chart.

You are a perfect sucker, really you should watch this movie, but I don't think you'd even get this one either.

 

[Frankfooter]

Climategate is proof of the fraud at IPCC. NASA and NOAA have become political organizations which taints the science. It is well known that they have adjusted the temperature record of the past 150 yrs and not explained the scientific merit of doing so. I can't call that fraud per se, but lack of clarity and dishonesty comes to mind.

That was investigated officially multiple times and found the opposite.
There was no fraud.

The closest thing to fraud was someone hacking and stealing personal emails then making them public.
All climatologists were fully exonerated by all investigations.

 

[Moviefan-2]

...not smart enough to note that the latest global surface temperature is 0.83ºC, which is actually right on the red line of that chart.

Gotcha!

Once again, you are inserting a number from a completely different source that uses an entirely different baseline for its calculation of the anomaly, in order to create imaginary "warming."

That's because all of the real graphs that plot the predictions against the observed data show the predictions were spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The closest thing to fraud was someone hacking and stealing personal emails then making them public.

I guess we're not supposed to be troubled by Phil Jones encouraging climate researchers to delete data that were subject to Freedom of Information requests to avoid any scrutiny of their research.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._tthe_emails_that_really_damn_professor_jones

Or by Jones and Michael Mann saying they will go to extreme lengths to prevent scientific research that doesn't support "the cause" (Mann's words) from getting published.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/228696/crus-tree-ring-circus-mark-steyn

 

[Moviefan-2]

If you could read the chart you'd note that the measurements are upper atmospheric....

Actually, they're lower atmospheric temperatures.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Who on earth would pay Michael Mann millions to draw a phoney graph? I mean, wouldn't other scientists see that (as) bullshit?

Since you asked:

http://www.steynstore.com/product133.html

 

[Frankfooter]

Gotcha!

Once again, you are inserting a number from a completely different source that uses an entirely different baseline for its calculation of the anomaly, in order to create imaginary "warming."

That's because all of the real graphs that plot the predictions against the observed data show the predictions were spectacularly wrong.

Excuse me, idiot, but you were the one caught out using a faked and deliberately misleading chart.
Your source chart, from ex-lobbyists wattsupwiththat, mixes IPCC surface projections with upper atmosphere projections, as clearly noted by me right here.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5318389&viewfull=1#post5318389


Not only are you so fucking stupid that you didn't realized you were caught out, you now think you tricked me even after I caught you out on your deception?
You are a total idiot.


Lets embarrass you properly here.
First, you need to admit that you used a bullshit chart, as noted in my reply, and second you need to admit that you are so stupid you didn't notice that I caught you out.
That's two full on fucking idiotic claims in one post.

Idiot.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your source chart, from ex-lobbyists wattsupwiththat, mixes IPCC surface projections with upper atmosphere projections, as clearly noted by me right here.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5318389&viewfull=1#post5318389

Try reading the caption at the bottom of the graph. The satellite data measure lower atmospheric temperatures.

You're having quite the weekend, Groggy.

Imaginary graphs. Imaginary quotes. Imaginary warming. And now you have confirmed that you don't know the difference between upper and lower atmospheric temperatures.

It really is difficult to know how many of your comments should be attributed to stupidity vs. delusions that are the result of your mental health challenges. I suspect your "upper" atmospheric idiocy is a result of the latter.

 

[Frankfooter]

Try reading the caption at the bottom of the graph. The satellite data measure lower atmospheric temperatures.
.

Exactly, they are not surface temperatures.
That is exactly my point.

These are what NOAA refer to as 'upper air datasets':

Weather Balloon Data

NOAA weather balloon
NOAA weather balloon carrying atmospheric instruments
Weather data from the atmosphere, beginning at three meters above the Earth's surface, are considered weather balloon or upper air data. These data are obtained from radiosondes, which are instrument packages tethered to balloons that are launched from the ground, ascend through the troposphere into the stratosphere, and transmit back to a receiving station on the ground. These observations include vertical profiles of temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, atmospheric pressure, and geopotential height.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/weather-balloon-data

You posted a graph that mixed surface temp predictions with atmospheric readings, then accused me of using the wrong data when I gave you a surface temperature number to compare to the red line that predicted surface temperature.

You fucked up twice in the same post.

You need to admit the following:
a) you posted a faked chart from a dodgy denier site
b) the chart mixed data from different sources in a dishonest matter
c) you didn't notice it
d) you accused me of mixing data when I correctly identified the metrics for the red line in your faked chart
e) you have no idea what you are talking about

You need to admit to all of those points, idiot.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You need to admit the following....

Here's what I'll admit, Groggy:

a) You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about and clearly have no idea what the lower troposphere is.

b) You don't know how to read graphs and your depictions of warming are completely imaginary.

c) You don't know the difference between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere.

d) All of the graphs show the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

e) You have some serious mental health challenges.

 

[TESLAMotors]

GPI, I implore you to do some research. Did you watch that video link I posted of Dr Tim Ball's lecture. I am the furthest from a conspiracy theorist but in this case the public has been totally hoodwinked to believe in something that may or may not exist. I didn't realize the depth of the fraud until I started reading and watching.

Depth of what fraud?
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5294251&viewfull=1#post5294251

Tim Ball is guilty by association, click the link above. Koch brothers in there. lol

 

[TESLAMotors]

IMO, best video on the topic yet.

 

[Frankfooter]

Here's what I'll admit,.

Try again:

You need to admit the following:
a) you posted a faked chart from a dodgy denier site
b) the chart mixed data from different sources in a dishonest matter
c) you didn't notice it
d) you accused me of mixing data when I correctly identified the metrics for the red line in your faked chart
e) you have no idea what you are talking about

 

[FAST]

The same people who just sent a spaceship to Pluto within minutes of their predicted time have reported that 14 of the 15 warmest years have happened since 2000. For the mathematically challenged (and unemployable), that means we have incontrovertible proof that the global surface temperature is rising as a result of anthropogenic climate change, since as moviefan has admitted, there is no other explanation for the rise in surface temperature, since the only 'natural' forcings are having a downward effect, though a very small downward effect..

Looks like you were of your meds again when you read my 1sy reply to this silliness of yours.
So I will try again for you,...
Climatologists from NASA sent a "spaceship" to Pluto, have made the astounding discovery that the earth is warming.
And specifically,...that the earth is was supposedly warming, and set records since 2000,...but that is some how different than the warming AND obvious record setting from 1880 thru 1900, and 1930 thru 1942, and 1980 thru 1990.

As your "expert" site,...Bloomberg shows,...the earth has been warming scince 1880,...with no natural causes,...other than the obviouse,...but not to the unemployables,...the fact that the earth has been warming scince the last ice age,...is,...NATURAL.

While we are on your "expert" site, Bloomberg,...either IPCC is lying or Bloomberg is lying, regarding the effects of deforestation on CO2 in the atmosphere,..and their claim that an increase in CO2 is what is what is behind their claim that the earth is warming at a higher rate than the 10 years preceding 2000,...
Pic one,...LITTLE BOY,...either deforestation contributes to the claimed global warming,...or is does not,...one or the other,...simple for even you,...LITTLE BOY.

BUT again,...NO difference than from 1880 thru 1900, and 1930 thru 1942, and 1980 thru 1990,...shit,...no wonder Harper fired the unemployables.


And lets not forget this confidence inspiring tidbit from NOAA
NOAA
A new study by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration finds that the world’s warming never really stalled during the last 15 years—it was just masked by incomplete data records that have been improved and expanded in recent years.
YEP,...the old creative accounting philosophy, of fudging the numbers until we get it "right",...and these people wonder why they are UNEMPLOYABLE,...???

Oh and this one,... and oceans are rising,...don't the unemployables EVER read their own graphs,...the oceans have been rising since recorded time,....

FAST

 

[red]

could this thread be moved to political forum?

 

[Frankfooter]

Climatologists from NASA sent a "spaceship" to Pluto, have made the astounding discovery that the earth is warming.
And specifically,...that the earth is was supposedly warming, and set records since 2000,...but that is some how different than the warming AND obvious record setting from 1880 thru 1900, and 1930 thru 1942, and 1980 thru 1990.

NASA monitors the climate, IPCC does the research with that and other data.
NASA and NOAA have reported that the global temperature increases are unprecedented in our history.

As your "expert" site,...Bloomberg shows,...the earth has been warming scince 1880,...with no natural causes,...other than the obviouse,...but not to the unemployables,...the fact that the earth has been warming scince the last ice age,...is,...NATURAL.

Wrong, all you are stating is your opinion, and you are stupid.
The research all points towards natural effects having a slight cooling effect and anthropogenic effects warming.

While we are on your "expert" site, Bloomberg,...either IPCC is lying or Bloomberg is lying, regarding the effects of deforestation on CO2 in the atmosphere,..and their claim that an increase in CO2 is what is what is behind their claim that the earth is warming at a higher rate than the 10 years preceding 2000,...
Pic one,...LITTLE BOY,...either deforestation contributes to the claimed global warming,...or is does not,...one or the other,...simple for even you,...LITTLE BOY.

Deforestation is tallied in anthropogenic effects, idiot.

BUT again,...NO difference than from 1880 thru 1900, and 1930 thru 1942, and 1980 thru 1990,...shit,...no wonder Harper fired the unemployables.

Check the chart above, if you are smart enough to follow it.
It shows you are wrong.

And lets not forget this confidence inspiring tidbit from NOAA
NOAA
A new study by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration finds that the world’s warming never really stalled during the last 15 years—it was just masked by incomplete data records that have been improved and expanded in recent years.
YEP,...the old creative accounting philosophy, of fudging the numbers until we get it "right",...and these people wonder why they are UNEMPLOYABLE,...???

Why do you have an issue with research continuing?
Do think they are supposed to issue one report and then retire?
How stupid are you?

Oh and this one,... and oceans are rising,...don't the unemployables EVER read their own graphs,...the oceans have been rising since recorded time,....

Oceans heights change normally on a geologic time scale, over thousands of years. We are changing that on a time scale we haven't seen before.
The climate of the planet changes, its not generally stable. We've been living through a relatively stable period, but now we've fucked that up and made it unstable by pumping all those dead dinosaurs into the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

 

[Moviefan-2]

b) the chart mixed data from different sources in a dishonest matter.

So, you think the predictions hold up better when they're compared against the terrestrial temperatures.

Interesting. Let's take a look at how the computer model predictions compare with the surface temperature readings.

---

I'm sorry to have to inform you that the surface temperature data still show the predictions were way off the mark.

In fact, all of the graphs that measure the observed data against the predictions show the predictions were spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

NASA and NOAA have reported that the global temperature increases are unprecedented in our history.

You believe the planet Earth is only 135 years old??

Wow.

That's worse than you not knowing the difference between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere.

(It's interesting, by the way, that the graphs you post never show what temperature increases were predicted over the same time period.)

 

[GPIDEAL]

You believe the planet Earth is only 135 years old??

Wow.

That's worse than you not knowing the difference between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere.

"OUR" (not Earth's) may be the operative word.

 

[Moviefan-2]

"OUR" (not Earth's) may be the operative word.

My apologies.

Groggy: You believe mankind has only existed on the planet for 135 years?

Wow. That's still worse than you not knowing the difference between the lower and upper atmospheres.