October Smashes Temperature Records Practically Guaranteeing 2015 Will Be HottestYear

[Moviefan-2]

Its right here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Its been there for 25 years or so.

Good one. Who said you had no sense of humour? :thumb:

 

[AK-47]

Beijing just had a red smog alert (first ever). I agree with the treehuggers on this regard.

Beijing smog doesnt for the most part come from oil fumes though, it comes from coal plants:

 

[canada-man]

 

[basketcase]

...

It's the bastardization of science by people with political agendas that upsets me. ....

Says the master of upsetting himself.

 

[Frankfooter]

Says the master of upsetting himself.

Its shocking how easy moviefan, FAST and ak46 fall for crap.
They have their own beliefs and will accept anything that backs those up and throw out anything that doesn't fit without any real inspection.

And the crap they push is there, all you need to do is pay for it.
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/

Greenpeace (and I expect them to try to shoot the messenger on this one) did an investigation and showed how easy it is to buy fake ant-climate change papers. They don't pass peer assessment, but they are accepted by the media. They also found how money is siphoned off to denier sites.

The difference between legit work and this work is immense.

 

[K Douglas]

Its shocking how easy moviefan, FAST and ak46 fall for crap.
They have their own beliefs and will accept anything that backs those up and throw out anything that doesn't fit without any real inspection.

And the crap they push is there, all you need to do is pay for it.
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/

Greenpeace (and I expect them to try to shoot the messenger on this one) did an investigation and showed how easy it is to buy fake ant-climate change papers. They don't pass peer assessment, but they are accepted by the media. They also found how money is siphoned off to denier sites.

The difference between legit work and this work is immense.

The peer review process is SO corrupted on the AGW side yet Greenpeace claims it's that way on the skeptic side. Good grief the obfuscation and irony is astounding.

 

[AK-47]

Does Savage sound like a bit of an asshole, or is that just me??

 

[Moviefan-2]

Its shocking how easy moviefan, FAST and ak46 fall for crap.
They have their own beliefs and will accept anything that backs those up and throw out anything that doesn't fit without any real inspection.

Says the guy who has been running away from his own graph and who insists the "pre-industrial age" was 25 years ago (and that the ninth month of the year is "March"). :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

And the crap they push is there, all you need to do is pay for it.
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/

Quite a different picture emerges when you actually look at the facts (which, of course, Franky never does).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...o-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/

Here's the money quote:

“To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc. I fully support regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants. But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.”

Didn't I read somewhere that someone claimed to believe in "real inspection"? :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

Says the guy who has been running away from his own graph and who insists the "pre-industrial age" was 25 years ago (and that the ninth month of the year is "March"). :biggrin1:

Says the guy who lied about two studies and repeatedly used a bullshit chart while trying to claim it was legit.
The same guy who thinks that being off 0.005ºC is 'spectacularly wrong'.

 

[Frankfooter]

Quite a different picture emerges when you actually look at the facts (which, of course, Franky never does).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...o-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/

There you go, quoting wattsupwiththat and proving my point.
That's a fossil fuel funded disinformation site, and you are a sucker for buying into such ridiculous claims such as:

More CO2 will benefit the world.

Though I do have to say I think it would be excellent for this case to go to court, it'll just expose the bullshit and the process that supplies all of the 'expert' reports you've been suckered into buying.
Add it to the list of failed court challenges, like the one against Mann and others in process.
Its about time the legal system and the world had a good look at how fossil fuel money buys bullshit fake reports that suckers like you think are legit.

Just like Willie Soon, Happer and Clemente are helping expose the con job suckers like you fall for.
Happer was fairly cheap, $8,000 for a bullshit report, Clemente wants $15,000.
Goodbye careers for them, who's going to hire a hack that provides bullshit papers for money again.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

Willie Soon was smarter, at least he made $1.2 million for peddling bullshit and destroying his own career.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Guaranteeing-2015-Will-Be-HottestYear/page15

You are a sucker.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Typical bluster from Franky about an article he didn't read (or, if he did read it, wasn't able to understand).

As for Greenpeace, everything you need to know about Greenpeace is captured in this story from last year:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...npeace-executive-flies-250-miles-to-work.html

 

[Moviefan-2]

Add it to the list of failed court challenges, like the one against Mann and others in process.

We'll add "against" to the list of words you don't understand. In fact, it was Mann who initiated the court cases.

And let's not forget Mann had to withdraw his original legal submission in the Mark Steyn case because the junk scientist falsely claimed to be the "recipient" of a Nobel Prize. As if. :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

Says the guy who ... repeatedly used a bullshit chart while trying to claim it was legit.

OK, so you think the original graph produced by the IPCC was "bullshit." Suit yourself.

But I don't understand you. I have repeatedly said I'm happy to accept the data in the graph that you posted that shows the IPCC's "projections."

It confirms that the IPCC projected a temperature anomaly in 2015 of about 0.85ºC and that the HadCRUT4 anomaly so far this year -- using the same baseline -- is 0.71ºC.

And for bonus, here's a chart of projections vs reality, which you still claim are 'spectacularly wrong'.

I have no issue with the data Frankfooter provided. We can agree on using that graph and draw the obvious conclusion:

Frankfooter's graph confirms the IPCC's "projections" have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Typical bluster from Franky about an article he didn't read (or, if he did read it, wasn't able to understand).

Idiot.
I quoted the article, here's another comic quote:

I shall also be asking the Bureau to investigate Greenpeace’s sources of funding. It is now an enemy of the State, an enemy of humanity and, indeed, an enemy of all species on Earth.

I'm sure those charges will really fly at court.
And I do really hope that the court charges force wattsupwiththatdoc to reveal all funding for that disinformation site.
That would be fair wouldn't it?

Would you support full investigations on funding on all your denier sites as well as greenpeace and the IPCC?
We know that Greenpeace has already been audited, nothing new is likely to come up.

But wattsupwiththeshit?
That would be fun to find out who is backing that crap.

Its going to most likely be the same people buying off shoddy scientists, isn't it?

 

[Frankfooter]

Frankfooter's graph confirms the IPCC's "projections" have been spectacularly wrong.

As if.

By the way, the rough numbers for November are coming in, latest I heard was 0.88ºC.
That puts the yearly average at 0.8273ºC.

What you claim as 'spectacularly wrong' is now a projection that is off by a whopping 0.0027ºC.
And this after rounds of rounds of your attempts to cherry pick dates.

Are you standing by your claim that a tolerance of 0.0027ºC is 'spectacularly wrong'?
Its really quite funny.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I quoted the article....

Ah, so you're saying the conclusion is that you didn't understand the article. Fair enough.

 

[Moviefan-2]

As if.

Your graph puts the IPCC projection for 2015 at about 0.85ºC and the anomaly for this super El Nino year at just 0.71ºC.

So, yes, your graph shows the IPCC's predictions are spectacularly wrong -- which is why you've been desperately running away from your own graph.

 

[Frankfooter]

Ah, so you're saying the conclusion is that you didn't understand the article. Fair enough.

The conclusion is that the article is a joke.

Arguing entrapment is ridiculous and petty whining. Two more denier 'scientists' were caught offering to write bullshit reports for oil money. Its a pattern, one that fools suckers like you who want to believe nothing is going on and are willing to accept whatever bullshit helps them feel ok. Everything you've been arguing comes from fossil fuel backed websites, published by fossil fuel backed hacks and pushed out by fossil fuel backed media.

The science is legit, even after fossil fuel backed hackers tried to pull even worse moves then you whine about through climategate, multiple investigations showed the science and the scientists to be clean.

You are a sucker.

 

[Frankfooter]

Your graph puts the IPCC projection for 2015 at about 0.85ºC and the anomaly for this super El Nino year at just 0.71ºC.

So, yes, your graph shows the IPCC's predictions are spectacularly wrong -- which is why you've been desperately running away from your own graph.

Once again.

That graph isn't the IPCC projections, the chart showing the IPCC projections made in the last IPCC report are spot on with the present temperatures.
Just like they are with our bet.

Moviefan thinks 0.0027ºC is 'spectacularly wrong'.
Its you that are spectacularly wrong.