Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

Status
Not open for further replies.

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
The article if very clear that the presence of additional CO2 generated accelerating warming. You really need to stop this clown dance and and admit that human caused global warming is thereby proven fact.
THis is climate alarmist bullshit..heard this in same bull shit about CO2 in the 70's by the same scientist now preaching for the global warming theory and the same climate scientist researcher who use to work for Exonn now work for USA governments.







http://s6.postimg.org/enk3sxddd/time_pic_good.png

It's an old story. It wasn't that long ago that the same sort of people who currently tell us that we are on the verge of worldwide destruction due to "global-warming", were proclaiming that we were on the verge of worldwide destruction due to "global-cooling" and over-population. If you are old enough, you might remember some of these memorable quotes:

"After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder."
[New York Times, Jan. 30, 1961] ".. civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind"

[George Wald, Biologist, Harvard University, April 10, 1970] Due to increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor: "the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born"

[Newsweek Magazine, January 26, 1970] By 1995: "..somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

[Senator Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look Magazine, April, 1970] The world will be: "11 degrees colder in the year 2000 (this is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age)"

[Kenneth Watt, Ecologist, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970] "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation"

[Barry Commoner, Biologist at University of Washington, The journal Environment, January, 1970]"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make"

[Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April, 1970]"air pollution ... is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone"

[Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April, 1970]"By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half ..."

[Life magazine, January, 1970]"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation"

[Denis Hayes, Earth Day organizer, The Living Wilderness, Spring, 1970]"By the year 2000 ... the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine"

[Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring, 1970]"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people..." "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."


[Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September, 1971] "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000."

[Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972] "An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere."

[New York Times, Jan. 5, 1978] "The Cooling World: There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it... Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states. ... The central fact is that ... the earth's climate seems to be cooling down." [emphasis added]

[Newsweek, April 28, 1985]
"New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now." [i.e., by 2004]

[St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 17, 1989] "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots ... [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers."

[Michael Oppenheimer, from his book "Dead Heat," 1990]
Whoops again! With over forty years to see these predictions realized, there was no worldwide famine. No end to civilization. No ice age. No mass species extinction. No American dust bowl. Britain is still intact. The North Pole still has a 3.82 million square mile ice mass. If New York sucks, its not due to its mimicing Florida. And there is still enough sunlight to require SPF 45. Yet, I don't remember getting an apology from any of these people, their sponsoring universities, or a retraction published in any of the major magazines.

And despite their utter failure at accurate predictions, every one of these purveyors of doom was being funded from the same government trough, and consequently, demanding exactly the same "solution" as is being proposed today: complete regulation over the behavior of every individual and businesses by government overseerers. If the true goal of these policies was human salvation, then the lessons of history and the Climategate facts should give one pause. But if the actual goal is gaining control as a means to increased power, then ignoring all these bothersome facts, as is being done, begins to make a perverted sort of sense.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
THis is climate alarmist bullshit..heard this in same bull shit about CO2 in the 70's by the same scientist now preaching for the global warming theory and the same climate scientist researcher who use to work for Exonn now work for USA governments.
Except it's proven fact, published in Nature, the most highly regarded scientific journal there is. Period.

0.2 watts per square meter per decade is an OBSERVATION. You lose.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Except it's proven fact, published in Nature, the most highly regarded scientific journal there is. Period.

0.2 watts per square meter per decade is an OBSERVATION. You lose.
See above post#740..you lose!! Peer review article highly regarded journal and scientist funded by govt. LAtest research!!!
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
http://www.cfact.org/2015/08/22/climate-crisis-inc-has-become-a-1-5-trillion-industry/

Climate Crisis, Inc. has become a $1.5 trillion industry
You are here: Home › All Posts › Climate Crisis, Inc. has become a $1.5 trillion industry
obamasolar
August 22, 2015 by Paul Driesen

No warming in 18 years, no category 3-5 hurricane hitting the USA in ten years, seas rising at barely six inches a century: computer models and hysteria are consistently contradicted by Real World experiences.

So how do White House, EPA, UN, EU, Big Green, Big Wind, liberal media, and even Google, GE and Defense Department officials justify their fixation on climate change as the greatest crisis facing humanity? How do they excuse saying government must control our energy system, our economy and nearly every aspect of our lives – deciding which jobs will be protected and which ones destroyed, even who will live and who will die – in the name of saving the planet? What drives their intense ideology?

The answer is simple. The annual revenue of the Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! That’s equal to the annual economic activity generated by the entire US nonprofit sector, or all savings over the past ten years from consumers switching to generic drugs. By comparison, revenue for the much-vilified Koch Industries are about $115 billion, for ExxonMobil around $365 billion.

According to a 200-page analysis by the Climate Change Business Journal, this Climate Industrial Complex can be divided into nine segments: low carbon and renewable power; carbon capture and storage; energy storage, such as batteries; energy efficiency; green buildings; transportation; carbon trading; climate change adaptation; and consulting and research. Consulting alone is a $27-billion-per-year industry that handles “reputation management” for companies and tries to link weather events, food shortages and other problems to climate change. Research includes engineering R&D and climate studies.

The $1.5-trillion price tag appears to exclude most of the Big Green environmentalism industry, a $13.4-billion-per-year business in the USA alone. The MacArthur Foundation just gave another $50 million to global warming alarmist groups. Ex-NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chesapeake Energy gave the Sierra Club $105 million to wage war on coal (shortly before the Club began waging war on natural gas and Chesapeake Energy, in what some see as poetic justice). Warren Buffett, numerous “progressive” foundations, Vladimir Putin cronies and countless companies also give endless millions to Big Green.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Our hard-earned tax dollars are likewise only partially included in the CCBJ tally. As professor, author and columnist Larry Bell notes in his new book, Scared Witless: Prophets and profits of climate doom, the U.S. government spent over $185 billion between 2003 and 2010 on climate change items – and this wild spending spree has gotten even worse in the ensuing Obama years. We are paying for questionable to fraudulent global warming studies, climate-related technology research, loans and tax breaks for Solyndra and other companies that go bankrupt, and “climate adaptation” foreign aid to poor countries.

Also not included: the salaries and pensions of thousands of EPA, NOAA, Interior, Energy and other federal bureaucrats who devote endless hours to devising and imposing regulations for Clean Power Plans, drilling and mining bans, renewable energy installations, and countless Climate Crisis, Inc. handouts. A significant part of the $1.9 trillion per year that American businesses and families pay to comply with mountains of federal regulations is also based on climate chaos claims.

But all these adverse effects are studiously ignored by Climate Crisis profiteers – and by the false prophets of planetary doom who manipulate data, exaggerate and fabricate looming catastrophes, and create the pseudo-scientific basis for regulating carbon-based energy and industries into oblivion. Meanwhile, the regulators blatantly ignore laws that might penalize their favored constituencies.

In one glaring example, a person who merely possesses a single bald eagle feather can be fined up to $100,000 and jailed for a year. But operators of the wind turbine that killed the eagle get off scot-free. Even worse, the US Fish & Wildlife Service actively helps Big Wind hide and minimize its slaughter of millions of raptors, other birds and bats every year. It has given industrial wind operators a five-year blanket exemption from the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Birds Treaty Act and Endangered Species Act. The FWS even proposed giving Big Wind a 30-year exemption.

Thankfully, the US District Court in San Jose, CA recently ruled that the FWS and Interior Department violated the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws, when they issued regulations granting these companies a 30-year license to kill bald and golden eagles. But the death tolls continue to climb.

Professor Bell’s perceptive, provocative, extensively researched book reviews the attempted power grab by Big Green, Big Government and Climate Crisis, Inc. In 19 short chapters, he examines the phony scientific consensus on global warming, the secretive and speculative science and computer models used to “prove” we face a cataclysm, ongoing collusion and deceit by regulators and activists, carbon tax mania, and many of the most prominent but phony climate crises: melting glaciers, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, disappearing species and declining biodiversity. His articles and essays do likewise.

Add in the state and local equivalents of these federal programs, bureaucrats, regulations and restrictions, and we’re talking serious money. There are also consumer costs, including the far higher electricity prices families and businesses must pay, especially in states that want to prove their climate credentials.

The impacts on companies and jobs outside the Climate Crisis Industry are enormous, and growing. For every job created in the climate and renewable sectors, two to four jobs are eliminated in other parts of the economy, studies in Spain, Scotland and other countries have found. The effects on people’s health and welfare, and on overall environmental quality, are likewise huge and widespread.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Scared Witless also lays bare the real reasons for climate fanaticism, aside from lining pockets. As one prominent politician and UN or EPA bureaucrat after another has proudly and openly said, their “true ambition” is to institute “a new global order” … “ global governance” … “redistribution of the world’s resources” … an end to “hegemonic” capitalism … and “a profound transformation” of “attitudes and lifestyles,” energy systems and “the global economic development model.”

In other words, these unelected, unaccountable US, EU and UN bureaucrats want complete control over our industries; over everything we make, grow, ship, eat and do; and over every aspect of our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties. And they intend to “ride the global warming issue” all the way to this complete control, “even if the theory of global warming is wrong” … “even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect” … “even if the science of global warming is all phony.”

If millions of people lose their jobs in the process, if millions of retirees die from hypothermia because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, if millions of Africans and Asians die because they are denied access to reliable, affordable carbon-based electricity – so be it. Climate Crisis, Inc. doesn’t care.

This global warming industry survives and thrives only because of secretive, fraudulent climate science; constant collusion between regulators and pressure groups; and a steady stream of government policies, regulations, preferences, subsidies and mandates – and taxes and penalties on its competitors. CCI gives lavishly to politicians who keep the gravy train on track, while its well-funded attack dogs respond quickly, aggressively and viciously to anyone who dares to challenge its orthodoxies or funding.

Climate change has been “real” throughout Earth and human history – periodically significant, sometimes sudden, sometimes destructive, driven by the sun and other powerful, complex, interacting natural forces that we still do not fully understand … and certainly cannot control. It has little or nothing to do with the carbon dioxide that makes plants grow faster and better, and is emitted as a result of using fossil fuels that have brought countless wondrous improvements to our environment and human condition.

Climate Crisis, Inc. is a wealthy, nasty behemoth. But it is a house of cards. Become informed. Get involved. Fight back.

CFACT Insights
Climate
renewables
About the Author: Paul Driessen
Paul Driessen
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

Watch students wake up about warming
All Posts
Catastrophic wildfires in the West
Related Posts

http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/EarthShine-213x120.jpg
Earth Day’s Big Lie

http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Uncle-fester-light-bulb-213x120.jpg
Not so bright lights

http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/jtflogo.jpg
New NAS study lambasts Obama “climate” subsidies

http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Obama-Marine-Umbrella-213x120.jpg
Obama battle cry: “Remember the climate!”
 

MattRoxx

Call me anti-fascist
Nov 13, 2011
6,752
3
0
I get around.
Yes there is a lot of money involved.

On its website tracking grants to groups, the conservative Capital Research Center listed CFACT as having received grants of $60,500 from Chevron between 1994 and 1998. (The CRC lists the grants comprising $16,000 in each of 1994, 1995 and 1996 and $12,500 in 1998). The CRC also listed CFACT from having received $25,000 from DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund $25,000 and a token $500 from the Ford Motor Company Fund.[10]

ExxonMobil contributed $5,000 in each of 1997 and 1998.[10] Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets website adds that Exxon has contributed a further $577,000 between 2000 and 2007.[11]
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Ah, its the return of the whiny copy and paste loser, is it?
You know what the punishment is for posting fairy-tale claims about the bet.

Here's the updated list of Franky's greatest hits. Thanks to Sophie for the latest addition.

- Nov. 10, 2015 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404144&viewfull=1#post5404144

- Nov. 21, 2015 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

- Nov. 27, 2015 -- This is still one of my favourites. He posted a graph that he said shows the "IPCC's projection" for 2015: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5410384&viewfull=1#post5410384. Then, after it was explained to him that the graph shows the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, he said it was "not an IPCC projection" and ran away from his own graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416739&viewfull=1#post5416739

- Nov. 29, 2015 -- He said NASA and NOAA don't use sea surface temperatures in their calculations of the global temperature anomalies: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411862&viewfull=1#post5411862. Actually, they do.

- Dec. 1, 2015 -- Another classic. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5414060&viewfull=1#post5414060

- Dec. 5, 2015 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416886&viewfull=1#post5416886. In fact, the graph came from Columbia University and uses the entirely different NASA data.

- Jan. 8, 2016 -- He said NASA has "never altered any data, all they did was alter the weighting of ocean temperature readings....": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5443355&viewfull=1#post5443355

- Jan. 10, 2016 -- He said I was "lying" when I said that a temperature change from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC is an increase of 0.15ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5445053&viewfull=1#post5445053

- Feb. 3, 2016 -- He said the calculation that the average of 0.75 + 0.82 + 0.84 + 0.71 + 0.71 is 0.766 is "denier math": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466417&viewfull=1#post5466417

- Feb. 4, 2016 -- He called it "lying your face off" when I said the difference between 0.43 and 0.68 is 0.25: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466781&viewfull=1#post5466781

- Feb. 8, 2016 -- A gem. He said the graphs on NASA's Vital Signs of the Planet page were "fake": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5470561&viewfull=1#post5470561. He repeated the claim on Feb. 13 when he said the NASA graphs had been "possibly doctored": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5473971&viewfull=1#post5473971

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He dismissed NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's graph of temperature anomalies as "dodgy": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472913&viewfull=1#post5472913

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He said NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's Twitter account isn't "legit": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472991&viewfull=1#post5472991

- Feb. 20, 2016 -- He said it was a "blatantly false claim" that the difference between 0.74 and 0.84 is 0.10: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5479780&viewfull=1#post5479780

- March 3, 2016 -- He said it's "not possible" for 0.89 to equal 0.89: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-change&p=5489838&viewfull=1#post5489838

- March 27, 2016 -- He said it was "incredibly stupid" to conclude that half of 2ºC is 1ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Early-April&p=5509136&viewfull=1#post5509136

- April 23, 2016 -- He tried to claim that 0.75 and 0.87 are the exact same number: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531128&viewfull=1#post5531128

- April 23, 2016 -- He claimed the average temperature for the period from 1961 to 1990 is a "different baseline" than the average temperature for the period from 1961 to 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531216&viewfull=1#post5531216

- May 1, 2016 -- He said that a climate researcher who thinks warming is 99% due to natural causes believes that "anthropogenic" climate change is happening: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5537250#post5537250

- May 11, 2016 -- He said all of the warming since 1850 was caused by humans (even the IPCC doesn't support him on this one): https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5546112#post5546112

- May 12, 2016 - He said the warming "slowdown" in the 21st century "fits" the predictions from Michael Mann's hockey stick graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5547096&viewfull=1#post5547096
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
How long are you going to do this clown dance?
The news release that you posted says that you are 100% wrong. How does quoting the news release constitute a "clown dance"?

Here's the reality. You keep trying to use a single paper in Nature to back your preposterous claims, however:

- You don't know what the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is.

- You don't understand the paper that you cited.

- You are completely wrong about the news release that describes the paper.

You still haven't confirmed for us whether you think water vapour feedback has a warming or cooling effect (Fuji has posted both claims).

You are totally ignorant. That's the inconvenient truth.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
See above post#740..you lose!! Peer review article highly regarded journal and scientist funded by govt. LAtest research!!!
Among the many things he doesn't know about science, Fuji has never heard of the possibility that there can be differing views in peer reviewed papers.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,003
21,955
113
You know what the punishment is for posting fairy-tale claims about the bet.
Hey troll, back to the cut and paste?

I call you out as a troll and will gladly challenge you an any one of those claims.
Pick your best shot (again) and lets see how full of shit you are.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
You are wrong.
CO2 is the primary driver, without the changes from CO2 levels water vapour stays at the same levels.
Are you and Fuji competing to see which one of you is the most illiterate?

There is nothing in what you posted that refutes anything I said.

As I told you before, the debate isn't about the "driver." Talk about moving the goal posts (or, more precisely, creating straw men).
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,003
21,955
113
Oh yeah, more conspiracy theories.
This one's a good one, you've got it backed by people working for energy efficiency as plotting fool the world.

How did they manage to melt the arctic ice cap?
How did they manage to make the last 15 of 15 the warmest year on record?

I can't believe some of the shit you guys believe.
Its really sad.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,003
21,955
113
Are you and Fuji competing to see which one of you is the most illiterate?

There is nothing in what you posted that refutes anything I said.

As I told you before, the debate isn't about the "driver." Talk about moving the goal posts (or, more precisely, creating straw men).
Ok, then we can confirm that the theory of AGW has been tested and proven correct, through proof of CO2 warming and including proof that water vapour is a feedback mechanism (through studies I provided).

End of argument.
loser.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Hey troll, back to the cut and paste?

I call you out as a troll and will gladly challenge you an any one of those claims.
Pick your best shot (again) and lets see how full of shit you are.
The last time you tried this, I picked one and immediately showed how it was wrong.

Then you had a temper tantrum because you said I hadn't acknowledged that you later admitted you were wrong (you should put daily posts on TERB that explain that everything you post is likely wrong).

For a change, how about I give you credit for the one that you might have got right? I think you may have been right about Gavin Schmidt's graphs being "dodgy." :thumb:
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,003
21,955
113
- May 12, 2016 - He said the warming "slowdown" in the 21st century "fits" the predictions from Michael Mann's hockey stick graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5547096&viewfull=1#post5547096

Just for fun, here's the last of your ridiculous troll claims.
Each and every one so pathetic.

First off, the claim that a chart showing reconstructions from historic data had 'predictions' for the future is the kind of big whopper of a mistake that would make a moviefan greatest hits, should I ever keep them.

Sort of like his claim that he didn't lose a bet on 2015 hitting 0.83ºC after it hit 0.87ºC.
That's a moviefan big whopper of a mistake.

Here's the original hockey stick graph.
Add in the numbers up to 2015 and its an even more pronounced hockey stick.
(and note that there are no 'predictions' included in this chart.

 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Ok, then we can confirm that the theory of AGW has been tested and proven correct, through proof of CO2 warming and including proof that water vapour is a feedback mechanism (through studies I provided).
There have also been published papers that dispute the estimations about water vapour feedback.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02263438

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2253.1

Nothing has been confirmed or "proven."

What we do know is that in the 21st century, the predictions about how man-made emissions would affect the temperature have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,003
21,955
113
There have also been published papers that dispute the estimations about water vapour feedback.
But as I showed, there are studies that do provide the water vapour feedback proof you requested.
Posted studies that didn't prove it doesn't disprove the work of those other studies.

What we do know is that in the 21st century, the predictions about how man-made emissions would affect the temperature have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.
No, the only one spectacularly wrong is the idiot who bet against the IPCC, betting that 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC.
The IPCC's track record is much, much better.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
First off, the claim that a chart showing reconstructions from historic data had 'predictions' for the future is the kind of big whopper of a mistake that would make a moviefan greatest hits, should I ever keep them.
Even the slowdown (it wasn't a 'pause', just a slowing of the rate of warming) still fits the hockey stick chart.
Huh?

If the hockey stick graph can't be used to project temperatures beyond 2000, then how did Frankfooter conclude that the 21st century slowdown "still fits" the hockey stick graph? :biggrin1:

In fact, the IPCC did use Mann's graph to predict future trends. And the IPCC did not predict a "slowdown":

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art29/figure12.gif

(If it will make Franky happy, I'll amend the wording in his greatest hits to reflect exactly what he said. It changes nothing.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Toronto Escorts