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

[Moviefan-2]

Wow. Now you pretend that the scientific community and scientific data supports your view.

I "pretend" the scientific data support my views? In fact, my conclusions have been supported by the IPCC, the Met Office, NASA, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, the University of Hamburg, and many others.

To repeat what others have posted, you're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

The observed data show the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong. In its own AR5 report, the IPCC said 111 of the 114 models it used were wrong.

Do you accept the IPCC's conclusions that 111 of the 114 models got it wrong? Yes or no.

 

[Moviefan-2]

How many times have you (and K Douglas) said there has been no 'statistical' warming in this century?

Plenty of times. To be precise, we have said there has been no statistically significant warming, with most of the data showing no warming at all.

Unlike the IPCC and the Michael Mann crowd, I don't pretend to be able to predict the future. I have stated what the observed data show as of today.

If you and Groggy want to check what "honest" people will say about the graphs, quote us accurately.

 

[basketcase]

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.

Look at your graph again. 0.5 fits in it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

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

Man, you post a lot of crap.

I'm not sure what you think AGW was "driving." The three projections that got it right predicted that significant increases in man-made greenhouse gases wouldn't lead to any change in the Earth's temperature.

 

[basketcase]

I "pretend" the scientific data support my views? In fact, my conclusions have been supported by the IPCC, the Met Office, NASA, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, the University of Hamburg, and many others....

So you say the IPCC, NASA, Met, and the rest say CO2 isn't a major factor causing warming? Fuck your arguments get more and more freakish.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Look at your graph again. 0.5 fits in it.

If it is, it would be at the absolute bottom and only in line with a projection that significant increases in man-made greenhouse gases would have no impact on the Earth's temperature.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So you say the IPCC, NASA, Met, and the rest say CO2 isn't a major factor causing warming? Fuck your arguments get more and more freakish.

I say the IPCC, NASA, the Met Office and the rest have all reported that there has been a "flattening" (NASA's term) of the Earth's temperature in the 21st century.

You knew what I meant. It was clearly explained in my post.

The fact that you and Groggy keep trying to twist and distort everyone's words speaks to a bigger point that I made earlier. Dishonesty and lies are at the heart of the AGW argument. You guys prove it, as do people like Mann, Schmidt, etc.

It makes you wonder -- if there is really a case for AGW, why do its supporters tell so many lies?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Now you pretend that the scientific community and scientific data supports your view.

I don't think I saw an answer to my question.

Do you accept the IPCC's conclusion that 111 of the 114 models got it wrong? Yes or no.

 

[Frankfooter]

To be precise, we have said there has been no statistically significant warming, with most of the data showing no warming at all.

Only a total fucking idiot can look at this chart and claim that "there has been no statistically significant warming, with most of the data showing no warming at all."

 

[Moviefan-2]

Only a total fucking idiot can look at this chart and claim that "there has been no statistically significant warming, with most of the data showing no warming at all."

Really?

Your chart shows the temperature increase from 1998 to 2013 was only 0.02 degrees Celsius.

Even the "adjusted" and inflated increase for 2014 shows it was only 0.05 degrees Celsius higher than 2005, which is within the margin of error.

Meanwhile, let's look at some of the other data:

- The HadCRUT4 data of surface temperatures showed the temperature in 2014 was less than the temperature for 1998 or 2010.

- The Berkeley Earth Science data of surface temperatures showed 2014 was not statistically any warmer than 2005 or 2010.

- NASA's pre-adjusted surface temperatures showed 2014 was not statistically any warmer than 2005 or 2010.

- NASA's pre-adjusted surface temperatures for 2015 showed the first five months of 2015 were no warmer than the first five months of 2010. Indeed, there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker.

- The RSS satellite data show there hasn't been any warming for more than 18 years.

- The University of Alabama in Huntsville's satellite data show the temperature in 2014 was less than the temperature in 2000.

The findings are irrefutable.

The Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been stagnant. In the 21st century, there has been no statistically significant warming.

 

[K Douglas]

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

Sell product, you must be fucking joking dude! Dr Ball is legitimate. He's got 40 years of climate study experience, is an independent scientist and beholden to nobody. He has withstood attacks from his academic peers and has incurred hundreds of thousands in legal costs to defend his reputation. Stop drinking the kool aid from propaganda sites like desmogblog and skeptical science whose sole purpose is to attack the messenger but not the message.

Just finished reading Dr Ball's book, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. I suggest all of you should enlighten yourselves and do the same. Better than Climate Change:The Facts because it is presented more in layman terms, as opposed to technical scientific terms.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Better than Climate Change:The Facts because it is presented more in layman terms, as opposed to technical scientific terms.

That's a fair comment, as there are clearly some pieces in Climate Change: The Facts that are way too techy.

Nonetheless, a number of the articles in that book are still worth a read.

 

[Moviefan-2]

He has withstood attacks from his academic peers and has incurred hundreds of thousands in legal costs to defend his reputation.

And who exactly is suing Dr. Ball?

Who else? Fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann, whose work is held in such high esteem by the "scientific community."

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

 

[K Douglas]

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).

The evidence is easy - observation over thousands of years! Cold, cool, warm, hot periods - the Earth has gone through them all.
Besides that there are hundreds of recent studies http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html that have been peer reviewed and point to solar activity (sun spots) as having a major influence on the earth's warming since the Little Ice Age ended in 1680. So for you to call that "debunked" is just plain wrong. I think you are referring specifically to Dr Willie Soon who has been viciously attacked by the alarmist crowd. Instead of debating his study results they assassinate his character by saying he's just a big oil mouthpiece. Soon is legit scientist unlike the political whores of scientists that are involved with IPCC.

 

[K Douglas]

And who exactly is suing Dr. Ball?

Who else? Fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann, whose work is held in such high esteem by the "scientific community."

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

He is also being sued by the fraud Andrew Weaver current leader of the BC Green Party. Apparently this guy is such an expert in climate science that the IPCC has him as a lead author in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th scientific assessments. He has a BSc in math and physics and a PhD in Applied Mathematics. Smart guy but what does this background have to do with climate science??

 

[Frankfooter]

Really?

Your chart shows the temperature increase from 1998 to 2013 was only 0.02 degrees Celsius.

Cherry picking, that's dishonest, very dishonest of you.
But what else do I expect from someone who has been caught lying five times already.


In fact, if you go from 2000-2015 (year to date), you see a rise in global temperature of 0.38ºC which is higher then the IPCC predicted.
If you start from 1999-104 you see a rise of 0.32ºC, which is also higher then the IPCC predicted.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt


Your cherry picking argument is as dishonest as everything else you post.
Do you not have one honest argument?

Only a totally dishonest idiot will look at this chart and claim "there has been no statistically significant warming, with most of the data showing no warming at all."

 

[Moviefan-2]

In fact, if you go from 2000-2015 (year to date), you see a rise in global temperature of 0.38ºC which is higher then the IPCC predicted.

You think the calendar year 2015 has already ended? Seriously??? :Eek:

Have you been outside today? Your mental illness is seriously out of control if you think it feels like January 2016.

Put the parka away. This is only August.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Only a totally dishonest idiot will look at this chart and claim "there has been no statistically significant warming, with most of the data showing no warming at all."

Let's review the data again.

- NASA's "adjusted" graph shows the temperature increase from 1998 to 2013 was only 0.02 degrees Celsius. In the case of the inflated increase for 2014, it still only produces an increase of 0.05 degrees Celsius over 2005, which is within the margin of error.

- The HadCRUT4 data of surface temperatures showed the temperature in 2014 was less than the temperature for 1998 or 2010.

- The Berkeley Earth Science data of surface temperatures showed 2014 was not statistically any warmer than 2005 or 2010.

- NASA's pre-adjusted surface temperatures showed 2014 was not statistically any warmer than 2005 or 2010.

- NASA's pre-adjusted surface temperatures for 2015 showed the first five months of 2015 were no warmer than the first five months of 2010. Indeed, there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker.

- The RSS satellite data show there hasn't been any warming for more than 18 years.

- The University of Alabama in Huntsville's satellite data show the temperature in 2014 was less than the temperature in 2000.

The findings are irrefutable. All of the graphs confirm the same thing.

The Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been stagnant. In the 21st century, there has been no statistically significant warming.

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.

 

[basketcase]

Sell product, you must be fucking joking dude! Dr Ball is legitimate. He's got 40 years of climate study experience, is an independent scientist and beholden to nobody....

Gee. I look at his site and it is filled with calls to buy his crap. Seems like he got you.

 

[K Douglas]

Gee. I look at his site and it is filled with calls to buy his crap. Seems like he got you.

Well worth the $9.99. It's called capitalism, a system that works until left wing nuts try to tamper with it [read green energy policy] And since he can't get a government grant and universities won't hire him because he doesn't subscribe to the mantra, he's got to make ends meet. I have no problem with that. His time and knowledge is worth something.