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

[Moviefan-2]

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.

To build on my point from post 399, you're just wallowing in your own delusions.

No one disputes the fact that the temperature increased in the latter part of the 20th century and then reached a plateau (for the recorded period). It is that plateau that has led to your "14 out of 15 years" silliness in the 21st century.

It is true that temperatures have remained at that plateau level -- but in the 21st century, they haven't been increasing. That's why all of the graphs that plot the projections and the observed data show the IPCC's predictions have been so spectacularly wrong.

IPCC: https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/fig1_4.jpg

Met Office: http://financialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/fe0617_climate_c_mf.jpeg?w=620&h=552

University of Alabama in Huntsville: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0025.jpg

By the way, unless you've now convinced yourself that MF-2 heads up NASA's GISS, "flattening" was not my opinion.

 

[K Douglas]

No matter how much overwhelming evidence you give the alarmists they choose to willfully ignore it. In their mind it is tainted by special interests and they will convince themselves of such without any concrete evidence. Liberals have a knack for doing that. They blindly believe in this bogus 97% consensus of climatologists publishing in peer reviewed journals. Yet they can't put the logic together to see that these so called peer reviewed journals are tainted by the worst special interest of all - the IPCC mandate to demonize Co2.
The IPCC was the brain trust of The Club of Rome under the leadership of Canadian Maurice Strong. Strong is a mini Soros, staunchly socialist but an opportunist greedy schmuck. He hates capitalism yet exploits the system to his financial benefit - can you get more hypocritical than that? It should be noted that Strong was implicated in the Oil For Food Scandal with Kofi Annan a few years back, and has been hiding out in China ever since with his hundreds of millions of ill gotten funds. He can't travel to the US or Canada because there is a warrant out for his arrest. You can't make this stuff up this is typical of the players in this whole AGW religious movement. They are frauds, corrupt to the bone. Starting with Sen Tim Worth and former NASA GISS head James Hansen, moving to Big Al and current NASA head Gavin Schmidt and the other corrupt groups of IPCC scientists - Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Mike Hume, Tom Wigley to name a few. You may notice I didn't include Keith Briffa in there, and that's because many believe he was the one responsible on the inside for leaking the emails now known as ClimateGate. There are also another 200,000+ emails that haven't been made available to the public....yet. That will put the nail in their coffin for good

 

[basketcase]

Wrong.

The IPCC graph showed the models had a 97 per cent failure rate. ....

Stop groggying. The number was created by one person's study, not by the IPCC graph you posted. The observed data for the past 3 years fit projections on the graph you posted (no matter who's numbers you want to use).

 

[K Douglas]

Stop groggying. The number was created by one person's study, not by the IPCC graph you posted. The observed data for the past 3 years fit projections on the graph you posted (no matter who's numbers you want to use).

I'm curious did you watch that 2 hr video of Dr Tim Ball's lecture that I posted here recently. If so I'd like to know what you think. To me it is the most convincing argument against AGW so much so I am now reading his book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. $9.99 on Amazon Kindle, well worth the read.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I'm curious did you watch that 2 hr video of Dr Tim Ball's lecture that I posted here recently. If so I'd like to know what you think. To me it is the most convincing argument against AGW so much so I am now reading his book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. $9.99 on Amazon Kindle, well worth the read.

Forget the debate over graphs.

This link mentioned all these indicators of a warming globe.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

It's not the sun. Haven't seen anything about the Earth's core warming (why would it?).

Man-made CO2 trapping the heat and warming the Earth makes sense. Even if it's not a primary cause, it certainly exacerbates the problem.

 

[K Douglas]

Forget the debate over graphs.

This link mentioned all these indicators of a warming globe.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

It's not the sun. Haven't seen anything about the Earth's core warming (why would it?).

Man-made CO2 trapping the heat and warming the Earth makes sense. Even if it's not a primary cause, it certainly exacerbates the problem.

Of course no one is debating that Co2 plays an important role in the greenhouse effect, even if it is only 4% of total gases. But the question at hand here is the AGW crowd thinks it is the primary driver of man made climate change and must be regulated because it's at dangerous levels. Yet there is no convincing evidence to support that theory because the computer models are flawed and basically ignore all the natural factors of climate change - solar variability, clouds, oceans, Milankovitch cycles, geothermal....

 

[Moviefan-2]

Stop groggying. The number was created by one person's study, not by the IPCC graph you posted. The observed data for the past 3 years fit projections on the graph you posted (no matter who's numbers you want to use).

Wrong again.

The University of Hamburg study that you're referencing said the models had a 98 per cent failure rate.

The 97 per cent failure rate comes from the IPCC's AR5 report that was published in 2013 -- the same report that had the final version of the IPCC's graph.

In Chapter 9 of the report, the IPCC said that for the period that goes from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 models got it wrong while only three of the models got it right. Furthermore, the three that got it right had all projected stagnant temperatures. The numbers can be found on Page 769 of Chapter 9 of the AR5 report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

The only models that got it right were the ones that projected stagnant temperatures. That's because the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century.

As for the more recent data that go to 2014, I'm sorry to have to tell you that those results don't align with the predictions:

Met Office: https://financialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/fe0617_climate_c_mf.jpeg?w=620&h=552

University of Alabama in Huntsville: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0025.jpg

 

[Moviefan-2]

Forget the debate over graphs.

Not going to happen.

The only way to test the hypothesis of man-made global warming is to measure the predictions against the observed data. Otherwise, you're just asking us to accept AGW as a matter of faith.

It's your side that keeps insisting your views are backed by science. Unfortunately, your conclusions aren't supported by evidence.

 

[basketcase]

I'm curious did you watch that 2 hr video of Dr Tim Ball's lecture that I posted here recently.....

No. I find reading to be more efficient (especially when comparing academic studies to a guy who is out to sell his products).

 

[basketcase]

...

Man-made CO2 trapping the heat and warming the Earth makes sense. Even if it's not a primary cause, it certainly exacerbates the problem.

That's the core of the issue I have with deniers. There has been a clear warming trend. Even if CO2 is only responsible for even a tenth of the change, it is the only factor that we can directly influence. Of course the widely believed view in the scientific community is that CO2 is a major factor so the importance is even greater.

Sadly the resistance to scientific conclusions tends to come from the right of the political spectrum. Not sure how much of it is politically tied and how much is that conservatives are more resistant to change.

 

[basketcase]

...

The 97 per cent failure rate comes from the IPCC's AR5 report that was published in 2013 -- the same report that had the final version of the IPCC's graph....

Then how come the IPCC observed data fits for the past 3 years fits well withing the projections in the graph you posted?

 

[GPIDEAL]

Of course no one is debating that Co2 plays an important role in the greenhouse effect, even if it is only 4% of total gases. But the question at hand here is the AGW crowd thinks it is the primary driver of man made climate change and must be regulated because it's at dangerous levels. Yet there is no convincing evidence to support that theory because the computer models are flawed and basically ignore all the natural factors of climate change - solar variability, clouds, oceans, Milankovitch cycles, geothermal....

4% is a red herring.

It doesn't take much to tip the scales to make the greenhouse effect the primary cause.

We know that greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise. This is a fact, if not anecdotal.

Is there evidence that those other 'natural factors' that you claim are driving forces or dramatically changing to cause global warming? I haven't heard anything else (and if I did, like solar activity, it's been debunked).

 

[Frankfooter]

To build on my point from post 399, you're just wallowing in your own delusions.

No one disputes the fact that the temperature increased in the latter part of the 20th century and then reached a plateau (for the recorded period). It is that plateau that has led to your "14 out of 15 years" silliness in the 21st century.

It is true that temperatures have remained at that plateau level -- but in the 21st century, they haven't been increasing. That's why all of the graphs that plot the projections and the observed data show the IPCC's predictions have been so spectacularly wrong.[/url]
.

And your evidence?
1) A 2012 chart that is not an official chart from the IPCC, that you falsely represent as being an IPCC release.
2) Another unsourced chart, one that proves you wrong yet you continue to post.
3) An outright fabricated chart from a denier site, that mixes atmospheric measurements with ground predictions.

That's zero for three.
It includes a lie about the source of one chart and another chart that is an outright attempt at deception, but one so poor as to fool only someone as stupid as you.

That makes four outright attempts at lying.
The two studies on the consensus that you lied about, plus these two charts that are outright fakes.

Your arguments are all based on lies.

 

[GPIDEAL]

That's the core of the issue I have with deniers. There has been a clear warming trend. Even if CO2 is only responsible for a third of the change, it is the only factor that we can directly influence. Of course the widely believed view in the scientific community is that CO2 is a major factor so the importance is even greater.

Sadly the resistance to scientific conclusions tends to come from the right of the political spectrum. Not sure how much of it is politically tied and how much is that conservatives are more resistant to change.

Absolutely!

I can tell you based on what I've seen from Americans in an email thread I belong to, is that their resistance is based on the notion that any admission of AGW means higher taxes, and nobody, especially the right, likes higher taxes. AGW be dammed when it means higher taxes.

Now don't get me wrong. I'd be pretty pissed if we start paying carbon taxes, but only because our governments are already wasteful and mismanaging.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Not going to happen.

The only way to test the hypothesis of man-made global warming is to measure the predictions against the observed data. Otherwise, you're just asking us to accept AGW as a matter of faith.

It's your side that keeps insisting your views are backed by science. Unfortunately, your conclusions aren't supported by evidence.

What about the physical evidence referred to in that link posted in my post #405? Those are manifestations of GW. (That's what I mean by 'forget about those graphs', which is to say 'forget about those graphs for now'.)

 

[asuran]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/opinions/sutter-blame-climate-change-vote-2-degrees/index.html

 

[Moviefan-2]

What about the physical evidence referred to in that link posted in my post #405? Those are manifestations of GW.

Nonsense. I want to see actual predictions measured against observed data.

A scientific hypothesis has to be measurable and falsifiable. Otherwise, it can neither be verified nor falsified and can only be accepted as a matter of faith.

 

[Moviefan-2]

That's the core of the issue I have with deniers. There has been a clear warming trend.

Not in the 21st century, there hasn't. Get with the times.

 

[Moviefan-2]

We know that greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise. This is a fact....

Absolutely true. There is no debate on that point.

We also know that the predictions about how those man-made greenhouse gases would affect the Earth's temperature were spectacularly wrong.

That's the problem.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Then how come the IPCC observed data fits for the past 3 years fits well withing the projections in the graph you posted?

Wrong. You're creating fairy-tale "warming" by mixing two completely different data sets.

For crying out loud, Basketcase, even Groggy has finally conceded that your approach is wrong.

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

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

If Groggy is (finally) able to get this point, surely you can learn it, as well.