The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control U.N. scientists say

[Frankfooter]

Let's try again.

Frankfooter, the IPCC spent two years defending its assertion that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

Moviefan, that IPCC report contained work from hundreds of scientists from over 100 countries.
And the only thing you can find wrong with it is one comment?

That's frigging amazing strong work.
Contrast that with the incredibly stupid chart that Phil just posted, where the errors on one chart are massive.

All you've done is confirmed that the IPCC work is pretty incredible, with only one minor error in a massive, massive report.

 

[Frankfooter]

"Sorry moviefan..."??

Um... how "really stupid" do you have to be to not realize that Phil C. McNasty and I are two different people? :frusty:

Are you two different people?
You post very similar material?

Can you prove you're two separate people?

 

[JohnLarue]

All this shows is that you are a very easy mark.
Very easy to fool with fake charts and dodgy information.

You should know
That is all you do

You didn't notice there is no vertical scale, didn't notice that chart is so incredibly wrong about recent years that its totally untrustworthy.
Now you should also understand that 16 of the 17 warmest years since humans started collecting enough data to measure global temperature are all higher then 1998 is on your chart and would be too high to fit in the chart at all.

Less than a blink of an eye relative to history of constantly changing climate on this planet

That chart is as useless as the rest of your claims.

Same can be said for your charts

CO2 levels are now higher then they have been for 800,000 years.

There is no way in hell you can make that statement with any degree of certainty
Any estimate of C02 levels 800,000 years ago is just that, an estimate

The latest IPCC report says we'll hit 1.5ºC in 12 years, which is likely double the height of your dodgy chart.

How many times do you think that has happened in the last 5000 years?

Look stupid , the climate has been changing for 4.5 B years
you look at a 5,000 year period with questionable estimates & declare with 100% certainty the world will end unless we get taxed
nice try, but no way

 

[JohnLarue]

Are you two different people?
You post very similar material?

Can you prove you're two separate people?

Nice try Groggy/ Frankfooter
Not everyone is as dishonest as you

 

[Frankfooter]

You should know
That is all you do
Less than a blink of an eye relative to history of constantly changing climate on this planet
Same can be said for your charts
There is no way in hell you can make that statement with any degree of certainty
Any estimate of C02 levels 800,000 years ago is just that, an estimate
Look stupid , the climate has been changing for 4.5 B years
you look at a 5,000 year period with questionable estimates & declare with 100% certainty the world will end unless we get taxed
nice try, but no way

You really are clueless, larue.
Nothing of what you say is backed up by anything remotely factual or by the science.
Its just blowhard opinions, and as shown before, you don't have a clue about the science or what you are talking about.

Contrast that to the reports and legit science I link to and quote.
All show full sources and the numbers behind their findings.

Your opinion on this matter is therefore useless.

 

[Frankfooter]

Not everyone is as dishonest as you

Whatever, fuji.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Again, you really are stupid moviefan.
How many times do I need to tell you?

1) no vertical scale
2) no credits for where the data comes from
3) wrong numbers from 1998 on
4) ridiculous prediction for 2019 that is about 5 times less accurate then even your predictions.

Its so fucking stupid that this Cliff Harris dude (who apparently has no degree in anything) claims that his data comes from a super secret weather organization, a massive 60 person organization he's not allowed to tell you anything about. For realz.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/Long-Range-Weather-Trends.htm

Sorry moviefan, but you have to be really stupid to still not notice the errors and problems in this chart.
If the best you can come up with is a 7 year old chart that is this shoddy, you really should just give up and go back to your collection of beta videos.
Really stupid.

(Though I do appreciate the grade 5 level humour of trying to pass off a chart as legit when one if its author is named 'Randy Mann')

Maybe have a look at this graph then. It clearly shows earth has historically gone through warming/cooling cycles.
And the warming cycles could obviously not have been caused fossil fuels since humans werent emitting CO2's back then.

Oh, and LOL @ you for thinking I am MovieFan

 

[Moviefan-2]

Are you two different people?
You post very similar material?

Can you prove you're two separate people?

:crazy:

 

[Moviefan-2]

....with only one minor error in a massive, massive report.

"One minor error"? That's hilarious.

Meanwhile, neither one of the Groggy/Frankfooters has answered the question.

To repeat:

The IPCC spent two years defending its assertion that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/e...odoo-sciencersquo-comment/article16839047.ece

Yes or no: During that time, did you believe the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035?

(I should note that failure to answer the question will be deemed worthy -- in itself -- of inclusion in Frankfooter's greatest hits on man-made global warming).

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

:crazy:

Frankie is on to us :biggrin1:

 

[JohnLarue]

You really are clueless, larue.
Nothing of what you say is backed up by anything remotely factual or by the science.
Its just blowhard opinions, and as shown before, you don't have a clue about the science or what you are talking about.

Contrast that to the reports and legit science I link to and quote.
All show full sources and the numbers behind their findings.

Your opinion on this matter is therefore useless.

Ha Ha
Says the moron who cant calculate a simple weighted average

get this through you high school drop out brain:
I have forgotten more science than you will ever understand

Hey stupid, how much CO2 is produced by the complete combustion of a gallon of gasoline?

You do not understand what you hide behind , yet you you think you can label others as "deniers"
you are nothing more than a pathetic liar, alway seeking to mislead others

 

[K Douglas]

Phil, try reading this a bit slower this time. Stop and think about what each word means and then see if you can understand the whole sentence.

16 of the 17 warmest years recorded happened since 2000.

Think about that again, now read the next sentence.
That means that yes, since humans started recording the temperature of the planet, roughly 1880, the 16 of the 17 warmest years all happened after 2000.

Or for those who aren't so smart:

16 of the 17 warmest years since 1880 have happened in the last 17 years.
And for those who have problems with words and/or english here's a nice picture.
https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/chart-16-17-warmest-years-record-occurred-2001

This statistic you and the alarmists keep bandying about is a result of the step change in global temperatures by about 0.2C due to the 1998 El Nino. Context is being ignored.

 

[K Douglas]

If you're okay swallowing only a tiny bit of cyanide....

Wow dude you have lost your marbles....sigh.

 

[Frankfooter]

The IPCC spent two years defending its assertion that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/e...odoo-sciencersquo-comment/article16839047.ece

Yes or no: During that time, did you believe the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035?

(I should note that failure to answer the question will be deemed worthy -- in itself -- of inclusion in Frankfooter's greatest hits on man-made global warming).

So this is the only error or problem you can find with IPCC reports?
Wow.

This was from an interview, not a report. And this interview happened in 1999.
So the worst error you can find was an one comment in an interview from 19 years ago?

Thanks for really showing how solid their work is that you couldn't find a single error in their reports and the best you could come up with is an error in an interview.

And the answer is no.
The work is in the reports, not the interviews.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

If that's the best you've got you should just stay in your basement.

 

[Frankfooter]

Ha Ha
Says the moron who cant calculate a simple weighted average

Larue, prove that I can't calculate a 'simple weighted average' through quotes and calculations from previous posts or admit that you are just making shit up again.
Go ahead.
Prove it.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Maybe have a look at this graph then. It clearly shows earth has historically gone through warming/cooling cycles.
And the warming cycles could obviously not have been caused fossil fuels since humans werent emitting CO2's back then.

Oh, and LOL @ you for thinking I am MovieFan

So Frankie, do you care to comment on this graph or are you quitting the debate??

 

[oldjones]

So Frankie, do you care to comment on this graph or are you quitting the debate??

You might want to check some histories of that relatively recent Medieval Warm Period. Not exactly a pleasant period, on either the upslope (which would be the slope we're on these days) or on the down. It won't contemporary lives any more pleasant to add our human contribution to whatever might be happening all on it's own. On the other hand, think of all the jobs and wealth we can create working to make the unpleasantness as minimal as we can because we see it coming when those Angles, Saxons and Jutes couldn't.

Of course, we could decide we're going to make ourselves as willfully ignorant and suffer passively, like the people of the Middle Ages. But they didn't know any better.

Thanks to your graph, and lots of similar science, we do. We have to decide to be stupid and work to be ignorant.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

You might want to check some histories of that relatively recent Medieval Warm Period. Not exactly a pleasant period

Please enlighten me, what exactly was so unpleasant about it?

 

[Frankfooter]

So Frankie, do you care to comment on this graph or are you quitting the debate??

It's another useless chart.

Tell you what, I'll let you tell me what's wrong with it and if you can't, I'll tell you and then we can confirm that I'm smarter then you and you don't know shit about this subject.
Fair?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

It's another useless chart.

Tell you what, I'll let you tell me what's wrong with it and if you can't, I'll tell you and then we can confirm that I'm smarter then you and you don't know shit about this subject.
Fair?

I got a much better idea, Frankie. I'll let you tell me why global warming is mostly overhyped bullshit, and if you can't I'll tell you and then we can confirm that I'm smarter then you and you don't know shit about this subject.
Fair? :nod: