ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"

[FAST]

An exact science,...so we are told,...

The article says warming slowed and that's true. .It didn't stop as you predicted. .

You can guaratee it won't stop,...your magazines must know EXACTLY when it will stop,...right fuji,...!!!

.

Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.,.

So again,...no fucking clue,...

.

Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14..

One more time,...EXACTLY doesn't really apply,...does it fuji,...so again,...no fucking clue,...must use one of those new climatologist calculators,...!!!

.

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is tired of the entire discussion, which he says comes down to definitions and academic bickering. There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence..

Just how the hell can some self appointed "expert" state,...with a straight face,...that,... "there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge",...

Another example of not a clue what's going on,...just another way of saying,..."the trend is changing,...and we don't know why",...and haven't even decided what "a short term is yet"

But if its published in the same magazine that Mann was published,...its ok to BULL SHIT.

 

[fuji]

Nice try. Unfortunately, Mr. Make Believe, we live in the real world. And in the real world, I made no such prediction.

What I did state was that the IPCC's predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong. The peer-reviewed paper in Nature shows there is a clear "mismatch" between the predictions and the observed data.

And as I said, the added bonus is that the published, peer-reviewed paper disputes the findings about sea-surface temperatures in the Karl paper that were the source of your 30-year average. You now have a published paper in one of your preferred journals that says your numbers are a crock.

You lose, Fuji.

You did predict that the temperature would stop rising. Your predictions have been the most spectacularly wrong.

In any case I'm satisfied with the quotes from the Nature article you provided indicating that warming continues, and that short term variances don't alter the long term trend.

 

[PornAddict]

You did predict that the temperature would stop rising. Your predictions have been the most spectacularly wrong.

In any case I'm satisfied with the quotes from the Nature article you provided indicating that warming continues, and that short term variances don't alter the long term trend.

You lost..loser!!

 

[JohnLarue]

This guy has been discussed repeatedly. Having a 1973 Nobel prize for electron tunneling in semiconductors in no way makes him an expert in climate change (any more than Noam Chomsky's work in linguistics makes him knowledgeable in international relations). He may come across well but so do many snake oil salesmen.

A Nobel prize in Physics makes him a pretty smart scientist. Period
In fact I would say he is far more qualified to speak intelligently on climate change than you or Fuji.
He truly understands what is required when examining and evaluating experimental data, methodology and most importantly proving or rejecting a hypothesis

The simple question is why does the vast majority of the scientific community disagree with him?

The need to publish or perish, herd mentality, justification of their funding, Pseudoscience, self justification of their beliefs rather than the pure application of scientific methodology etc.
If you watch his presentation in the first few minutes he discusses some of the issues around published scientific work

The majority of learned men insisted the world was flat before Columbus sailed west

Again, just to be clear, I am not 100% convinced about man made global warming.
The more I hear fools like Fuji declare it as 100% absolute , the more sceptical I become. (Very little is 100% absolute).
Zealots do not generally convince many people

However I also understand that there is a possibility we maybe destroying our planet and ignoring that possibility may result in our extinction, which would be the greatest sin mankind ever committed.

 

[basketcase]

Because the process is controlled and corrupted by a cabal of influential 'scientists' who have political (U.N.) connections.
There are so many dissenting studies that refute the theory of AGW. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Ah, the conspiracy theory again.

 

[basketcase]

A Nobel prize in Physics makes him a pretty smart scientist. Period...

As are the vast majority of scientists who see the evidence supporting the conclusion that human produced CO2 is a major driver of current climactic changes.

If a PhD and awards make people worth listening to then why do you insist on ignoring that the great many other scientists that disagree?

 

[basketcase]

...
The majority of learned men insisted the world was flat before Columbus sailed west
...

(Ignoring the fact that you are incorrect on this point; Eratosthenes proved the Earth was spherical and calculated its radius more than 2000 years ago - just like with climate change, the scientific community knew the truth even if the masses of uneducated felt otherwise)

What you clearly miss is you are just reinforcing scientific method. Scientists accept the Earth is round because that is the best theory to explain observations. It is possible that a better explanation comes along but until it does, AGW is the best theory to explain the evidence.

 

[fuji]

You lost..loser!!

By which you mean the Nature article confirmed global warming.

 

[FAST]

By which you mean the Nature article confirmed global warming.

Which confirms you lost,...live with it.

 

[fuji]

Which confirms you lost,...live with it.

By which you mean I was right, global warming was confirmed by the article MF posted from Nature.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You did predict that the temperature would stop rising.

Bullshit.

Here's the thread from May 2015 where I made my bet with Frankfooter about the IPCC's predictions: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5243530&viewfull=1#post5243530. Anyone who wants to go through that thread will clearly see that I never said the temperature would stop rising. Unlike the global warming alarmists, I don't pretend to be able to predict the future.

I did correctly predict that the IPCC's predictions would remain spectacularly wrong. That was easy to predict, given that the predictions have been so far off the mark.

The reality is the IPCC has no idea how man-made emissions might affect the Earth's temperature, if at all. Its predictions have been completely wrong. There is no evidence that man-made emissions affect the Earth's temperature in any meaningful way, which is what the Nature article actually confirmed.

Fuji loses.

 

[JohnLarue]

(Ignoring the fact that you are incorrect on this point; Eratosthenes proved the Earth was spherical and calculated its radius more than 2000 years ago - just like with climate change, the scientific community knew the truth even if the masses of uneducated felt otherwise)

I am not incorrect, when Columbus sailed west, it was widely believed the world was flat, similar to today when the widely accepted believe (right or wrong) is that Global warming is man made.
The only difference is that in 1492 nobody had the prefix PhD to bolster their credibility

What you clearly miss is you are just reinforcing scientific method.

Good. Far too much emotion is embedded into conclusions about Global Warming.

Scientists accept the Earth is round because that is the best theory to explain observations. It is possible that a better explanation comes along but until it does, AGW is the best theory to explain the evidence.

That is a piss poor argument if one is claiming their conclusion is absolute
"We found this guy close to the murder scene, so unless we find another suspect, we shall have to hang him"

I prefer to think the possibility of man made global warming does exist, however the possibilities also exist that
a) the earth continues its constant evolution
b) the earths orbit does not support a constant stable average temperature
c) the electromagnetic radiation from the sun is not constant
d) CO2 emitted from forest fires & volcanoes may be influencing results far more than the most acknowledge
e) the time line of data is far too short relative the history of a constantly evolving planet
f) the changes in temperature are far too small +/- 0.8 degrees to support your conculsion
g)
.
.
.

To claim your position with absolute certainty is just not logical and it is also somewhat irresponsible

 

[JohnLarue]

As are the vast majority of scientists who see the evidence supporting the conclusion that human produced CO2 is a major driver of current climactic changes.

If a PhD and awards make people worth listening to then why do you insist on ignoring that the great many other scientists that disagree?

Lets be clear
I do not reject the possibility that human produced CO2 may be a major driver of current climactic changes
What I reject is this conclusion is absolute and true with 100% confidence.
Scientific theory is never that exact

When I see a fool like Fuji state 100% absolute, I become more sceptical and naturally want to see if opposing views are more rational

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"

This was a very rational and logical presentation.
Time will tell if he is correct or not

 

[FAST]

By which you mean I was right, global warming was confirmed by the article MF posted from Nature.

Which again,...confirms you lost,...its not that complicated fuji,...well maybe for some.

Need some help,...if an article was posted in a magazine with no credibility,...Nature ,...then you lost,...!!!

Besides,...the globe has been warming well before man had introduced enough CO2 that COULD have any possible effect on the planet.

 

[fuji]

Which again,...confirms you lost,...its not that complicated fuji,...well maybe for some.

Need some help,...if an article was posted in a magazine with no credibility,...Nature ,...then you lost,...!!!

Besides,...the globe has been warming well before man had introduced enough CO2 that COULD have any possible effect on the planet.

So, my point being confirmed by Nature to you means I lost? You've always been a little crazy....

 

[fuji]

Bullshit.

Here's the thread from May 2015 where I made my bet with Frankfooter about the IPCC's predictions: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5243530&viewfull=1#post5243530. Anyone who wants to go through that thread will clearly see that I never said the temperature would stop rising. Unlike the global warming alarmists, I don't pretend to be able to predict the future.

I did correctly predict that the IPCC's predictions would remain spectacularly wrong. That was easy to predict, given that the predictions have been so far off the mark.

The reality is the IPCC has no idea how man-made emissions might affect the Earth's temperature, if at all. Its predictions have been completely wrong. There is no evidence that man-made emissions affect the Earth's temperature in any meaningful way, which is what the Nature article actually confirmed.

Fuji loses.

For years your have been posting that you doubt the climate is warming, and for years it's continued to warm.

 

[FAST]

So, my point being confirmed by Nature to you means I lost? You've always been a little crazy....

Actually read my post before being a little crazy fujj,...

"Need some help,...if an article was posted in a magazine with no credibility,...Nature ,...then you lost,...!!!"

A fact easily confirmed.


Or is this just more of your selective reading fuji,...actually does explain a lot of your postings.

 

[fuji]

Actually read my post before being a little crazy fujj,...

"Need some help,...if an article was posted in a magazine with no credibility,...Nature ,...then you lost,...!!!"

A fact easily confirmed.


Or is this just more of your selective reading fuji,...actually does explain a lot of your postings.

Your credibility be Nature's?

You have opted out of reality.

 

[FAST]

Your credibility be Nature's?

You have opted out of reality.

I'm not sure I can decipher your Engwish in your 1st sentence,...but I'll give it a shot.

Your Nature magazine has been proven to be NOT credible,...and its peer reviewing proven to be incompetent and biased,...so you lose..

 

[KBear]

As are the vast majority of scientists who see the evidence supporting the conclusion that human produced CO2 is a major driver of current climactic changes.

Think you are misreading the evidence.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry says CO2 is not the main driver of climate change
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/19/ener...is-not-the-main-driver-of-climate-change.html

The EPA's webpage on the causes of climate change used to state, "Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change."

CO2 is one of many gasses being emitted as a result of human activity, out of all those gasses, CO2 is the primary gas contributing to climate change. That statement by the EPA does not mean CO2 is the major driver of climate change.

There are many other factors that contribute to climate change, some we know about like deforestation, some we may not know or fully understand yet.