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

[basketcase]

Beats me.....

Love the science of your view. Don't worry about why it occurs as long as you can use it to further your denier claims.

Simple answer is changes in the ocean current patterns (such as NAO).
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered/


And if you cared to look at it, it seems that the MWP may have been a LOCAL phenomena as climactic records from other parts of the world show a cooling during that period. What we have now in an increase in GLOBAL temperatures.

 

[GPIDEAL]

http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/08/19/climategate-coverup

Conclusion

The infamous hockey stick graph is still used today in an attempt to force draconian regulations on the entire world. The graph is the product of fault data and a brutally manipulative model.

The scientists involved knew the science was junk and covered it up. Those scientists undertook a systematic and coordinated campaign to prevent their data and model methodologies from being made known. This campaign extended to physically deleting emails in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. This was completely unethical and also illegal. It was done purely in the furtherance of their fraud.

But worst of all, these global warming advocates assaulted the core principals of the scientific method by attacking the peer-review process itself. By pressuring journals and editors to publish papers supporting the ’cause’ while blocking publication of ‘dissenting’ papers, proper scientific debate, the means by which we arrive at the truth, was quashed.

Passion For Liberty sounds like a libertarian (ultra right wing) website. Of course they are going to condemn any notion of AGW.

Like I said, even if GW is not entirely man made, surely CO2 emissions exacerbate the problem. Perhaps if they plant more trees, we can counter it?

 

[GPIDEAL]

Love the science of your view. Don't worry about why it occurs as long as you can use it to further your denier claims.

Simple answer is changes in the ocean current patterns (such as NAO).
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered/


And if you cared to look at it, it seems that the MWP may have been a LOCAL phenomena as climactic records from other parts of the world show a cooling during that period. What we have noW iS an increase in GLOBAL temperatures.

Fixed your post (added 'W' to 'no', and substituted 'S' for 'n').

Good point!

 

[Frankfooter]

Are you kidding? Tons of scientists say the temperature in the MWP was warmer than now - Roy Spencer & John Christy @ Univ of Alabama-Huntsville, Dr Tim Ball, Dr Don Easterbrook, Dr Robert Carter, Dr Klaus Eckert Puls, Dr Fred Singer, Dr William Gray, Dr Tim Patterson, Dr Judith Curry, Dr Richard Lindzen being some of the more prominent names. For crying out loud the chart in the original IPCC report in 1990 showed it being warmer.

Mann's hockey stick is a total fraud.

Nice list of deniers.
Not a single legit and/or non-fossil fuel funded name among them.
The fact that you think they are more credible then all of the IPCC, AAAS, NASA and pretty much every legit scientific organization in North America shows you to have very poor judgement.

The research shows that the MWP was largely a local event, not global, which confirms the validity of the hockey stick graph.

 

[Frankfooter]

http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/08/19/climategate-coverup

Conclusion

The only conclusion from your link is that the blogger who wrote that post risks libel charges, as the National Post did, for outright lying.
The illegally hacked emails were investigated 6 times by legit organizations and government panels and every single one of them found nothing wrong.
To claim otherwise is to outright lie.

http://www.alternet.org/comments/en...ate-gate-scientist-sues-national-review-libel
http://www.c2es.org/blog/gulledgej/sixth-independent-investigation-clears-climategate-scientists

You are an idiot to believe that bloggers crap.

 

[Frankfooter]

Fair enough. I'll amend my comment to the time since civilized man has been on the planet.

The point still remains: What Jones was saying in the BBC interview was "unprecedented" was the actual temperature level. Though I don't disagree that the AGW crowd also claims the rate of warming is unprecedented.

Both claims are completely baseless and not supported by evidence.

Wrong again, idiot.
You continue to provide only your opinions, which are incredibly wrong.

As noted by NASA, who are much, much smarter then you.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

As reported by the IPCC, who are much, much smarter then you.

Global warming ‘unequivocal’ and ‘unprecedented’ – IPCC

http://theconversation.com/global-warming-unequivocal-and-unprecedented-ipcc-18711

As reported by the AAAS, which represents the majority of scientists in the US.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

And as noted repeatedly, 14 of the last 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/02/14-15-hottest-years-record-2000-un-global-warming

2014 was the warmest year on record, and 2015 is on track to break that record and for you to lose our bet on climate change.
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/


Your claims are completely baseless and not supported by any evidence at all.
You are lying.

 

[Moviefan-2]

What we have now is an increase in GLOBAL temperatures.

Not in this century. Get with the times.

By the way, you may have missed it, but Groggy posted comments the other day that confirm that the imaginary "warming" that you and he created by transferring data points from one graph to a completely different graph was total bullshit.

They are different data sets using different weights of different data.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5320407&viewfull=1#post5320407

You go, Groggy.

I think you should follow suit, Basketcase. You'd hate to have people think Groggy may be moving ahead of you when it comes to finally understanding how to plot numbers on a graph.

 

[Moviefan-2]

As reported by the IPCC....

As reported by the IPCC in Chapter 9 of its AR5 report: 111 of the 114 computer model projections got it wrong. That's a 97% failure rate, for those keeping track.

Indeed, every graph that has plotted the IPCC's predictions against the observed data has confirmed the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And as noted repeatedly, 14 of the last 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/02/14-15-hottest-years-record-2000-un-global-warming

2014 was the warmest year on record, and 2015 is on track to break that record and for you to lose our bet on climate change.
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/

I thought the only thing the AGW crowd reportedly cares about is the "rate" of warming. The Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century.

 

[PornAddict]

The only conclusion from your link is that the blogger who wrote that post risks libel charges, as the National Post did, for outright lying.
The illegally hacked emails were investigated 6 times by legit organizations and government panels and every single one of them found nothing wrong.
To claim otherwise is to outright lie.

http://www.alternet.org/comments/en...ate-gate-scientist-sues-national-review-libel
http://www.c2es.org/blog/gulledgej/sixth-independent-investigation-clears-climategate-scientists

You are an idiot to believe that bloggers crap.

You are the idiot... Here the real proof why global warming is crap!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie

 

[basketcase]

Not in this century. Get with the times.....

Funny but the graph you posted showed the observed data from the past few years fit projections of continued warming.

 

[bishop]

You have to understand the quality of frank's intelligence, he attributes the wiping out of the neanderthals to global warming.

Arguing with him is no more productive than yelling at a rock, a really dumb rock.

The last time CO2 hit 400ppm mastodons and sabre tooth tigers were around, but they were wiped along with the Neanderthals around this time in a mass extinction.
Mass extinctions don't really sound like fun for me, I'm assuming that means fewer SP's....

You never studied statistics, did you?

 

[Frankfooter]

Not in this century. Get with the times.
.

Wrong.
You are lying.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/02/14-15-hottest-years-record-2000-un-global-warming

 

[Frankfooter]

You are the idiot... Here the real proof why global warming is crap!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie

You are a sucker.
An easy mark for ex-tobacco lobbyists.
Not smart enough to understand the science or to understand how little you know.

 

[Frankfooter]

I thought the only thing the AGW crowd reportedly cares about is the "rate" of warming. The Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century.

Wrong.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

More lying.

Too stupid to read a chart correctly, aren't you?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Funny but the graph you posted showed the observed data from the past few years fit projections of continued warming.

Wrong.

The IPCC graph showed the models had a 97 per cent failure rate. The IPCC graph showed that the three per cent of model projections that got it right were the projections for stagnant temperatures in the 21st century.

The overwhelming majority (111 of 114 models) got it wrong because they wrongly predicted that increases in man-made greenhouse gases would lead to warming.

Put those Spice Girls CDs in the closet and get with the times.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Wrong.
You are lying.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/02/14-15-hottest-years-record-2000-un-global-warming

I have explained this to you before. Remember how you couldn't understand the difference between "flattening" and "flat"?

 

[PornAddict]

You are a sucker.
An easy mark for ex-tobacco lobbyists.
Not smart enough to understand the science or to understand how little you know.

You must be the most gullible person and not smart to understand science at all!
Let assume for your arguments sake that the video is fake and create by some ex-tobacoo lobbyists that now work for the climate denyers.

PROOF MY ARGUEMENT IS WRONG FRANKFOOTER IF YOU CAN!!


Here the main three reasons why all global warming model is inaccurate and unreliable! This is a facts that you cannot OR ANYONE / and especially you or any climate scientists can dispute at all !

HERE A BET/ CHALLENGE IF YOU CAN PROOF / DISPUTE ALL THIS FOUR MAIN POINTS....

IF YOU CAN DISPUTE THIS ALL FOUR MAIN POINTS I PROMISE I WILL STAND NAKED IN FRONT TIME SQUARE OR DUNDAS SQUARE OR DOWNTOWN TORONTO IN FRONT OF CITY TV STATION OR ANYPLACE OF YOUR CHOOSING WEARING A SIGN SAYING " GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!!! OR ANY THING YOU LIKE ME TO WRITE ON THE SIGN .

IF YOU cannot proof be wrong then you must post A NEW THREAD /POST on terb with a NEW thread admitting that you are wrong on climate change or global warming !!!
Are you MAN enough to take this bet.




The ONLY place that CO2 causes global warming is in the computer models..

SEE IF YOU CAN DISPUTE OR PROVE ALL THESE 4 Main POINTS I LISTED BELOW!!.

HERE ARE THE FOUR MAIN POINTS why CLIMATE MODELS ARE UNRELIABLE:

CLIMATE Computer models that don't include these factors:

1) CHAOS( HAVE NOT BEEN MODEL)
2) ENSO (CANT BE MODELED)
3) or clouds (because they haven't been able to model clouds yet),
4) or the oceanic decadal oscillations (as admitted by the IPCC).


Climate is not linear, it is chaotic and chaos has not yet been successfully modeled. Climate computer models are an attempt to predict chaos with a linear mathematical model that doesn't include three!!! of greatest influences on climate. Gee, what could go wrong?

This three greatest influences on climate are ENESO,CLOUDS, and oceanic decadal oscillations!


Hence that why all climate models are UNRELIABLE, NOT ACCURATE AND IT IS CRAP !!!

Anyone that have a brain know there is no way on earth you can model a Cloud !!!!


PS Believe what you want Frankfooter, " This is what You offered is your personal opinion, which is worth nothing. :!!!

PPS FRANK PROOF ME WRONG IF YOU CAN and take this bet!! PROVIDE ME LINKS AND DATA AND CONCRETE EVIDENCES ON THAT THE COMPUTER MODELS ON THIS CLOUDS, ENESO, OCEANIC DECADALS OSCILLATIONS SHOWING ME THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO MODEL THAT IN THEIR CLIMATE MODEL

 

[Moviefan-2]

You have to understand the quality of frank's intelligence, he attributes the wiping out of the neanderthals to global warming.

Arguing with him is no more productive than yelling at a rock, a really dumb rock.

True enough. The problem, though, is that there is a risk that some readers might believe him.

I can't speak for others, but I smack down the things that Groggy/Franky posts so that others will realize he's full of crap. I don't actually care what his delusional mind believes.

 

[Frankfooter]

I have explained this to you before. Remember how you couldn't understand the difference between "flattening" and "flat"?

You offered your personal opinion, which is worth nothing.

I gave links to legit data, papers, articles and concrete evidence.

Your claims are lies.

My claims are backed by every legit scientific organization in North America.