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

[Moviefan-2]

Only a totally dishonest idiot will look at this chart and claim it shows a flat horizontal line.

Nice try.

I didn't say it showed a "flat, horizontal line." I said it shows that temperatures have been stagnant in the 21st century.

Since you don't like using 1998, let's look at the data from 2005 to 2014. Even after the data were "adjusted," the graph shows a change of only 0.05 degrees Celsius, which falls within the margin of error. Despite the amplification of small temperature changes on the left axis, the graph shows temperatures have been stagnant in the 21st century.

Indeed, more reliable data sets such as the satellite readings (which aren't being adjusted to make Obama happy) show no warming at all. Up to May of this year, NASA's chart also showed 2015 was no warmer than 2010.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nice try.

I didn't say it showed a "flat, horizontal line." I said it shows that temperatures have been stagnant in the 21st century.

Only a totally dishonest person looks at this chart and claims that there has been no warming, or that warming has stopped.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Actually, what I wrote was that more reliable graphs show there has been no warming in the 21st century.

We all accept that your "adjusted" NASA graph shows a minuscule amount of warming (eg., a 0.05 degrees change from 2005 to 2014. Even worse, your graph shows no warming at all from 1998 to 2012, and only a 0.02 degree difference from 1998 to 2013).

No matter. The graphs all confirm that temperatures have been stagnant in the 21st century and the predicted warming didn't happen.

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually, what I wrote was that more reliable graphs show there has been no warming in the 21st century.
We all accept that your "adjusted" NASA graph ....

Only a dishonest idiot accuses NASA of 'cooking the books', in a totally unfounded accusation, when that person has been found guilty of outright lying 5 times in this discussion.


Only a totally dishonest person looks at this chart and claims that warming has stopped.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Only a totally dishonest person looks at this chart and claims that it shows any statistically significant warming in the 21st century.

I fixed your quote for you.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Only a dishonest idiot accuses NASA of 'cooking the books'

You've incorrectly attributed the verb "cooking" to NASA. I said NASA was using cooked books.

The cooking was done by the NOAA, which used its adjustments to sea surface temperatures to add greatly inflated increases to current temperatures.

That's not just the view of "deniers." Supporters of AGW, such as the Met Office in the U.K., have also questioned what NOAA did.

But Obama's henchmen didn't care. Ignoring the debate about whether its approach has any validity, it proceeded to jack up the numbers to indefensible levels. NASA then incorporated the inflated numbers into its "adjusted" graph.

 

[Frankfooter]

I fixed your quote for you.

You need to stop basing every single post on lying.


Lets get back to the correct version.


Only a totally dishonest person looks at this chart and claims that warming has stopped.

 

[Frankfooter]

The cooking was done by the NOAA, which used its adjustments to sea surface temperatures to add greatly inflated increases to current temperatures.

You are accusing NASA of using fraudulent numbers and accusing NOAA of outright fraud.
Provide evidence to back up this claim, or is this just another 'metaphor', as you claimed last time you were called out on your bullshit?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets get back to the correct version.

No one that I know has made the claim that "warming has stopped."

In my case, what I have said is that the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century and that the planet hasn't been warming. Regardless of the NASA graph's depictions of a minuscule amount of warming in the 21st century, your chart confirms what I have posted.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You are accusing NASA of using fraudulent numbers and accusing NOAA of outright fraud.
Provide evidence to back up this claim....

Sorry, Groggy, but the real world doesn't work that way.

The Climategate emails confirmed that the AGW crowd will go to extreme (and possibly illegal) steps to promote "the cause." For example, it is widely recognized that the Michael Mann hockey stick that was used as the basis for a complete rewrite of the historical records was junk. Even Mann's closest allies and friends have questioned the legitimacy of the hockey stick.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/

Earlier this year, Gavin Schmidt of NASA's GISS admitted to the Daily Mail in the U.K. that the definitive claim that 2014 was "the warmest year on record" was a lie.

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

The examples above and countless others have confirmed a clear pattern of dishonesty. The so-called "authorities" have completely squandered any benefit of the doubt.

Supporters and skeptics have both challenged the NOAA's "adjusted" numbers and the NOAA has failed to address the criticisms. Indeed, while the scientific community was questioning the NOAA's conclusions, the NOAA worked with lightning speed to rewrite all the numbers.

The onus is on the NOAA to prove that its numbers aren't inflated, as is currently believed to be the case by scientists on both sides of the debate. Until that happens, the cooked-books criticism stands.

 

[Frankfooter]

No one that I know has made the claim that "warming has stopped."

In my case, what I have said is that the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century and that the planet hasn't been warming. Regardless of its depictions of a minuscule amount of warming in the 21st century, your chart confirms what I have posted.

You contradicted yourself in your post.
Typical.

But lets get back to your first statement, if you believe:
a) the planet is warming
b) that the warming hasn't stopped

Then why do you keep posting that there is no climate change, that its all a conspiracy and that your handful of kooks and lobbyists are the only ones who know the truth?

 

[Frankfooter]

Sorry, Groggy, but the real world doesn't work that way.

The Climategate emails confirmed that the AGW crowd will go to extreme (and possibly illegal) steps to promote "the cause."

False, the stolen emails were shown to have no evidence of fraud or conspiracy, and all climatologists were found innocent of any charges six times.
And the hockey stick graph is legit, has been updated and confirmed by multiple other studies.

Your so called 'authorities', Judith Curry and her ilk, have never:
a) published a study that passed the sniff test
b) come up with legit alternate theories that pass the sniff test
c) been found to not be under the pay of the fossil fuel industry, which stands to lose tens to hundreds of billions.

Only a total idiot would look at this chart and claim ' the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century and that the planet hasn't been warming. '

 

[PornAddict]

Hey moviefan-2,

Check out this video that presented by Dr Don Easterbrook

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

This video have so much raw data you can make you you own mind just based on raw data, IT NOT OPINIONATED..based on raw data , graphs, in his presentation slides that will tear apart all the AGW alarmist claim.He also say "CO2 cannot caused global warming and able to explain why it cannot caused global warming" ...

Also ripped apart the 98% claim that climate scientists is in agreement that Co2 cause global warming and he show see video at time stamped at 1:07:10
how sneaky they arrived to that figure of 98% in agreement. In realities it is only 2% among climate scientists in agreement that c02 causes in global warming. (They cherry pick the data of the sample size of climate scientist that answers the survey on global warming.)
After you finished watching you will able to tear apart all global warming alarmist claim arguments.

PS it an awesome presentation...so much data, graphs, facts.

Frankfooter will lose his bet with you.

 

[PornAddict]

Frankfooter you never repond to my previous post.. So in case you missed my post see post #398 https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-Change-Nobel-Prize-Winning-Scientist/page17I am going to repost for you.

I am waiting for you counter arguements or rebuttal on my post.



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 ( El Nino-Southern Osillation) ..." 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[/QUOTE]

 

[basketcase]

You think the "past 3 years" ended in 2012? :Eek:

I think you need to buy a calendar.

By the way, your post forgot to mention that I was right about the IPCC reporting in 2013 that 111 of the 114 models got it wrong.

Once again you avoid that 2012, 2013, and 2014 data all fits within the projections.

 

[basketcase]

That clearly hasn't been the case on TERB.

In this and other threads, the two guys have put up the most resistance to scientific conclusions have been you and Groggy. Neither one of you strike me as right wingers.

Wow. Now you pretend that the scientific community and scientific data supports your view. This is getting even more amusing.

 

[basketcase]

No one that I know has made the claim that "warming has stopped."...

Bizarro world again. How many times have you (and K Douglass) said there has been no 'statistical' warming in this century?

 

[basketcase]

Once again you avoid that 2012, 2013, and 2014 data all fits within the projections.

And the projections that got it right still say that AGW is the driving factor.

 

[PornAddict]

Wow. Now you pretend that the scientific community and scientific data supports your view. This is getting even more amusing.

see video at time stamped at 1:07:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI
how sneaky they arrived to that figure of 98% in agreement among cliImate scientists which is false.
In realities it is only 2% among climate scientists in agreement that c02 causes in global warming. (They cherry pick the data of the sample size of climate scientist that answers the survey on global warming.)

 

[Moviefan-2]

Once again you avoid that 2012, 2013, and 2014 data all fits within the projections.

Wrong again.

The IPCC graph that I posted was using the HadCRUT temperatures. The HadCRUT temperature anomaly for 2014 was 0.5 degrees Celsius -- nowhere near the overwhelming majority of projections. Certainly nowhere near the average of the projections, and possibly not in line with a single one of them.