16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

[Moviefan-2]

Those projections are based around a range, not a single number.

Wrong again: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

As is clearly described in the IPCC's reports, the IPCC has made "projections" based on the mean of the model runs.

For reasons of clarity, I call them predictions since you and Basketcase are forever confusing the IPCC's "projections" with the model simulations, and then misrepresenting quotes to try to muddy the issue.

Until you guys can understand this stuff, I will refer to the model runs as projections and the IPCC's calculations as predictions.

 

[Moviefan-2]

What should have happened was that scientists work to disprove that theory but instead governments only gave funding to those scientists willing to provide research that reinforced that hypothesis.

Indeed. It is clearly spelled out in the IPCC's mandate that the IPCC is to make the case for man-made climate change.

That is a clear agenda that is a political agenda. And there are no standards for falsification -- all results are somehow interpreted as support for the hypothesis, even when the "projections" were completely wrong (as has been the case throughout the 21st century so far).

 

[Frankfooter]

Wrong again: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

As is clearly described in the IPCC's reports, the IPCC has made "projections" based on the mean of the model runs.

This is from the IPCC page you linked to:

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.

Their projections are based on a range.
What a moron you are.

 

[Frankfooter]

Indeed. It is clearly spelled out in the IPCC's mandate that the IPCC is to make the case for man-made climate change.

That is a clear agenda that is a political agenda.

Bullshit.
They were charged with researching and reporting, not coming out with a pre-determined finding.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is from the IPCC page you linked to:


Their projections are based on a range.
What a moron you are.

Try reading the part in bold right at the top:

"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected."

Last time I checked, 0.2°C is a number, not a "range" of numbers. :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

Try reading the part in bold right at the top:

"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected."

Last time I checked, 0.2°C is a number, not a "range" of numbers. :biggrin1:

You are missing key words there, loser.

"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected."

 

[Moviefan-2]

You are missing key words there, loser.

Yes, it's an approximation.

But 0.2 is still a single number, not a "range" of numbers as you said.

Try looking up something for yourself. In chapter 9 of the IPCC's AR5 report, it clearly states that its "projections" are based on the mean of the simulations. I'm sick of doing all your homework for you.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, it's an approximation.

But 0.2 is still a single number, not a "range" of numbers as you said.

The put 'about 0.2' in their summary box then add more detail to that summary later in the report, such as this line

Case Best estimate Likely range
B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 – 2.9

Which clarifies that they make their projections based on ranges, and sometimes they add in a mean or 'best estimate' but there is always an error bar or range of projections.
Which again confirms that this chart contains IPCC projections and observations.

You claimed this chart doesn't contain IPCC projections.
You are wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Bullshit.
They were charged with researching and reporting, not coming out with a pre-determined finding.

The role of the IPCC, as defined in the IPCC's own statement of principles (bolded emphasis highlighted by me):

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the
scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with
scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies."

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

K. Douglas was right. The IPCC is mandated by an agenda explicitly focused on "human-induced climate change."

It's no surprise that the IPCC members always interpret the data in a way that their political bosses would like.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You claimed this chart doesn't contain IPCC projections.

No, I said it doesn't have predictions, which I have clearly defined as the average of the simulations.

That's enough Frankfooter stupidity for the moment. I can only handle so much ignorance in one sitting.

 

[Frankfooter]

No, I said it doesn't have predictions, which I have clearly defined as the average of the simulations.

That's enough Frankfooter stupidity for the moment. I can only handle so much ignorance in one sitting.

This is what you said:

- Your IPCC graph doesn't even have the predictions, although it is clear that the observed data are well below the average of the runs. .

So now you are trying to make your own definition of 'predictions' that are based only on the averages of the simulations?
Taking IPCC projections that are clearly stated as a range of outcomes and claiming that they really mean only the average?

Typical Dunning-Kruger effect claim, isn't it?
Trying to claim that your knowledge of the IPCC is better than the IPCC itself.

Go take a nap.

 

[basketcase]

You're confusing predictions with model-run projections.....

You're confusing bullshit excuses with reality.

You posted that same graph repeatedly when you thought in supported your claims. The observed data fits well within the projections the graph shows yet you still try to pretend it is "spectacularly wrong".

I could try to explain to you that scientists project trends, not predict specific temperatures at a specific time, and all of the observed data fits well within the predicted trend. I could explain but you don't care and will just move on to another excuse.

 

[basketcase]

...
The IPCC graph doesn't actually show how the observed data compare with the predictions.....

If your excuses now rely on the IPCC being off by a few hundredths of a degree, you really have given up all pretense of being scientific.

 

[FAST]

Here, start with this statement from Exxon's research:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

That statements is similar to findings by government funded research.

So 2 Climate Calamity Clowns make unsubstantiated, fact less, and spectacularly wrong predictions in 1977, constitutes the fossil fuel industries agreement with the 3 stooges, IPCC, NOAA and NASA findings.

Footer, you missed your calling in life.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

If your excuses now rely on the IPCC being off by a few hundredths of a degree, you really have given up all pretense of being scientific.

Try 1/10th of a degree -- that's half the size of the IPCC's per decade predictions, and that's in an El Nino year!

 

[Moviefan-2]

...and all of the observed data fits well within the predicted trend.

Total nonsense. You're just making shit up.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So now you are trying to make your own definition of 'predictions' that are based only on the averages of the simulations?

Take a look at Box. 9.2 on Page 769 of Chapter 9 of the IPCC's AR5 report -- the one that looks at the projections and observations for the global mean surface temperature:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

"Mean" in this context means average, you twit.

 

[Frankfooter]

Take a look at Box. 9.2 on Page 769 of Chapter 9 of the IPCC's AR5 report -- the one that looks at the projections and observations for the global mean surface temperature:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

To summarize your claims:
a) you take IPCC projections which project a range of possible results and then only consider the average.
b) you then claim that those projections should only be measured against the average and not whether they fall within the projected ranges
c) you then expect those averages or means to be exactly accurate

In other words, you are making claims that are based on a false premise.
You refuse to judge the IPCC projections based on what the IPCC claims as their projected accuracy and instead judge them on claims they don't make.

Looks like you are the one who is spectacularly wrong about the IPCC and their projections.

 

[Frankfooter]

So 2 Climate Calamity Clowns make unsubstantiated, fact less, and spectacularly wrong predictions in 1977, constitutes the fossil fuel industries agreement with the 3 stooges, IPCC, NOAA and NASA findings.

Footer, you missed your calling in life.

FAST

Unsubstantiated?
We now have over a doze states looking into Exxon based on this research, if it was unsubstantiated that wouldn't happen.

This untold chapter in Exxon's history, when one of the world's largest energy companies worked to understand the damage caused by fossil fuels, stems from an eight-month investigation by InsideClimate News. ICN's reporters interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists, and federal officials, and consulted hundreds of pages of internal Exxon documents, many of them written between 1977 and 1986, during the heyday of Exxon's innovative climate research program. ICN combed through thousands of documents from archives including those held at the University of Texas-Austin, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

From the link above.

Here's a link to Exxon's corporate primer on climate change, from 1982.
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...982 Exxon Primer on CO2 Greenhouse Effect.pdf

Here's a direct quote from that document:

Our best estlmate ls that doubling of the current
congentrarion could lncrease average global temperature by about l.3º to
3.1ºC.

That is the opposite of unsubstantiated, that's fully documented with a direct link to a copy of the document.

FAST, you are the one making unsubstantiated claims here.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You refuse to judge the IPCC projections based on what the IPCC claims as their projected accuracy and instead judge them on claims they don't make.

Nonsense. The graph below -- which clearly shows the type of model-run average that is the basis for predictions made by the IPCC and others -- wasn't created by me.