Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[IM469]

Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter vs. Moviefan-2

Here's a funny update.

Here's another funny update ... I added my own update to the title. Can't figure out how you can omit your nom de plume from the thread and then plunge in to yet another endless debate over climate change.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Can't figure out how you can omit your nom de plume from the thread and then plunge in to yet another endless debate over climate change.

At this point, one more thread on the matter is statistically insignificant.

If you can't beat 'em, ...

 

[Frankfooter]

At this point, one more thread on the matter is statistically insignificant.

If you can't beat 'em, ...

Then just repeat the same bullshit over and over again?
Is that your motto?

Once again:
This thread is based off of a bullshit chart that moviefan is trying pass off as legit.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Then just repeat the same bullshit over and over again?
Is that your motto?

Once again:
This thread is based off of a bullshit chart that moviefan is trying pass off as legit.

We're well aware of the fact that you prefer the second graph -- the one that shows the temperature anomalies for 2013 and 2014 were at the bottom of the simulation runs.

I quite like that one, too. It confirms what I have been saying for quite some time.

 

[Frankfooter]

We're well aware of the fact that you prefer the second graph

The point is your claim is based on a chart that the IPCC never published because it had an error in it.

And your response when its pointed out to you that the chart is not what you claimed, or bullshit?

Immaterial.

Only a total wanker considers the use of suspect support material as 'immaterial'
Your continued support of this chart just shows that you have no credibility.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Only a total wanker considers the use of suspect support material as 'immaterial'

It's immaterial to the point of the thread.

There's no substantive difference between the first graph and the second graph when you're looking at how the observed data compare with the simulations. In both cases, the observed data are well at the bottom of the simulations.

Predictions that "updated" data would make the IPCC's predictions look any better were clearly wrong, as your own preferred graph confirms.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's immaterial to the point of the thread.

This entire thread is rendered pointless because its based on a bullshit claim.
The chart you used is bullshit, its not legit.

The fact that you use bullshit sources really characterizes your claims.

 

[nobody123]

Here's a new chart for your consideration...

 

[nobody123]

Oh look, another chart relevant to this debate:

 

[nobody123]

Or perhaps a Venn Diagram will help get the point across?

 

[Frankfooter]

Looks like nobody wins!

 

[nobody123]

Looks like nobody wins!

Truer words were never spoken, my friend!

 

[Twister]

Here's a new chart for your consideration...

So true...thank you Nobody123 the 2 Dumb and Dumber you mentioned are bonafide trolls without a life.

 

[IM469]

Counting charts could have the same effect as counting sheep ...

 

[**Sophie**]

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports of fisherman, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far North as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Sounding to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old sea fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make coastal cities uninhabitable.

I must apologise, I neglected to mention this report was from November 3, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post, yes, 93 years ago.

 

[fuji]

Sophie, that is another fallacious argument: wrong predicting were made in the past, so any prediction made today must also be wrong. That is an emotional argument of the sort made by people who don't like and don't understand the science.

In the last 93 years our technical ability and our sophistication in doing science and in gathering data has increased by orders of magnitude. There is no way to compare the science and measurement we are capable of today with what we could do back then.

And while we are here, let's kill another myth:

The science of climate change isn't based only on computer modeling. It's based on direct empirical science including spectrum analysis of greenhouse gas. We have scientifically proven casual mechanisms, not just models.

The people like you who dismiss the scientific evidence tend not to know what it is.

 

[FAST]

Sophie, that is another fallacious argument: wrong predicting were made in the past, so any prediction made today must also be wrong. That is an emotional argument of the sort made by people who don't like and don't understand the science.

In the last 93 years our technical ability and our sophistication in doing science and in gathering data has increased by orders of magnitude. There is no way to compare the science and measurement we are capable of today with what we could do back then.

And while we are here, let's kill another myth:

The science of climate change isn't based only on computer modeling. It's based on direct empirical science including spectrum analysis of greenhouse gas. We have scientifically proven casual mechanisms, not just models.

The people like you who dismiss the scientific evidence tend not to know what it is.

1st,...you completely ignore the observations made,...I guess people eyes were not as "sophisticated" as they are now.

And let me get this straight,...all these graphs showing what the temp. will be some time in the future,...is NOT based on computer modeling,...???

Predictions as recent as 1978 have proven to be bull shit, so I guess that "our sophistication in doing science",...what ever the hell that means,...was wrong in 1978,...???

And once again,...NOTHING has been proven.

FAST

 

[**Sophie**]

HaHa FUJI!! That was my point it's a bullshit article singing the same propaganda since waaaaaay back then...Thought you would have picked up on that

Sophie, that is another fallacious argument: wrong predicting were made in the past, so any prediction made today must also be wrong. That is an emotional argument of the sort made by people who don't like and don't understand the science.

In the last 93 years our technical ability and our sophistication in doing science and in gathering data has increased by orders of magnitude. There is no way to compare the science and measurement we are capable of today with what we could do back then.

And while we are here, let's kill another myth:

The science of climate change isn't based only on computer modeling. It's based on direct empirical science including spectrum analysis of greenhouse gas. We have scientifically proven casual mechanisms, not just models.

The people like you who dismiss the scientific evidence tend not to know what it is.

 

[IM469]

I must apologise, I neglected to mention this report was from November 3, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post, yes, 93 years ago.

Apology accepted. Initially I thought it was an intentionally withheld detail to hide the premise that this was another local weather phenomena to be hoisted as a coup de grâce for people that confuse local weather with climate analysis ... but you obviously didn't intentionally do this. :thumb:

You may notice that temperatures vary from the norm just like we had two weeks ago but local variations have little to do with general trends that the majority of scientists and studies have indicated. If you are not embedded in the 'No' camp and interested in why the scientists do not feel the 1922 contradicts their own beliefs, may I direct you to this link:

https://web.archive.org/web/2010070...RM ARCTIC ICE TRENDS AND GLOBAL WARMING.1.pdf

 

[Moviefan-2]

There's a key problem with computer modelling that tries to predict future trends: The future is unknowable.

If you've never read it, take a look at this speech that was delivered by Michael Crichton.

http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html

He made a number of excellent points but a key one is this: Even if the climate researchers have got the science right (something Crichton didn't believe), they've got the sociology wrong.

What he meant is the AGW hypothesis is based on what could happen if we were to keep burning fossil fuels and continuing the present lifestyle for the next 100 years.

The whole concept is preposterous. Society evolves. The way that people will live in 100 years' time will be nothing like our lives today. We can't imagine what their lives will be like.

Creating computer models that make predictions 100 years out based on current trends is absurd, even if you think the modellers are interpreting the present data correctly.