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

[Phil C. McNasty]

Crop failures, drought, famine, epidemic disease, kingdoms collapsing, migrations, invasions pillaging across whole continents where we have recorded histories

All these things have happened in the past even when there was no warming period.

But okay, lets say your theory is correct, can you then explain why the Roman Empire flourished during the Roman Warming period.
At one point the Romans had conquered almost all of Western Europe.

While you're at it could you also explain why that warming period happened??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

 

[Moviefan-2]

Again, the only mistake you found in all of your denier sites and googling was from an interview 18 years ago and an IPCC report that's 11 years old?
And you still think that makes them look bad?

The "mistake" was cited in the report itself and it made international headlines. And, yes, a fuck up that enormous makes the IPCC look horrible.

It remains one of the IPCC's biggest predictions. The fact that you needed to do a Google search to learn about it confirms that you know nothing about the IPCC's reports or its predictions.

Your ignorant statements about the IPCC are solely a matter of religious faith, not science.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Bullshit, sir.

I do the opposite.
I answered to your first chart with detailed explanations why it was wrong.
So then you ignored that and posted another chart.
I then said that chart is also bullshit and challenged you to see if you could see why.
So then you ignored that and posted another article.

I responded to each of your posts.
You are the one that squirmed away and tried to change the subject.

Everything you've posted has been bullshit

So Frankie, are you saying earth has never had warming periods, and this graph is wrong as well??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

 

[Moviefan-2]

Again, the only mistake...

Wrong again. The IPCC's 2013 report said the temperature predictions in the 2007 report were completely off the mark (Page 15):

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Similar to today's Creationists, your faith-based statements ignore all facts and reality.

 

[Moviefan-2]

These threads are really pretty hilarious. All the Trumpanistas waiting for a signal from a guy who relies on his "natural instinct for science" to accept which is beyond any scientific debate. Really quite hilarious and SAD.

You read about as well as Groggy/Frankfooter. No one is using Trump's statements as the basis for challenging the IPCC's fairy-tale predictions.

 

[Moviefan-2]

It was not a 'leading prediction'.

Why don't you write a letter to the New York Times to protest its characterization of the "much-publicized" prediction: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/earth/19climate.html

 

[toguy5252]

You read about as well as Groggy/Frankfooter. No one is using Trump's statements as the basis for challenging the IPCC's fairy-tale predictions.

lol. Apparently I read better than you. I did not say that you were relying upon him. I did say that if he expressed a contrary view you and the others would change your position in a heartbeat.

 

[Moviefan-2]

lol. Apparently I read better than you. I did not say that you were relying upon him. I did say that if he expressed a contrary view you and the others would change your position in a heartbeat.

Nonsense. I established my credentials as a card-carrying "denier" years ago.

You can find a number of threads confirming that point in Frankfooter's greatest hits on man-made global warming (which will definitely be updated with some of the gems from this thread).

 

[toguy5252]

Nonsense. I established my credentials as a card-carrying "denier" years ago.

You can find a number of threads confirming that point in Frankfooter's greatest hits on man-made global warming (which will definitely be updated with some of the gems from this thread).

LOL. You should not take pride in your ignorance.

The fact that there may be outliers who do not accept the overwhelming preponderance of scientific consensus does not change the fact. Witness the flat earth society. Is that who you identify with?

 

[bver_hunter]

Will go with real scientific evidence of global climate change that has been carefully monitored, tested and analysed:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

These conspiracy alt right theories are mind boggling.

 

[canada-man]

Will go with real scientific evidence of global climate change that has been carefully monitored, tested and analysed:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

These conspiracy alt right theories are mind boggling.

false doomsday predictions for over 30 years is not science

 

[basketcase]

"One minor error"?...

As opposed to the massive amount of errors and failure in the claims that human produced CO2 isn't a problem? Even the theory that solar activity is the major driver failed years ago when the significant temperature drop they predicted didn't materialize. At best solar activity just caused a temporary slowing to the continuous warming trend.

There is a reason why scientists agree that CO2 is a problem and it isn't some kind of conspiracy like you keep trying to claim.

 

[basketcase]

false doomsday predictions for over 30 years is not science

Of course what the illiterate miss is that the doomsday predictions are just as rare in the scientific community as the people who deny AGW is happening.

 

[bver_hunter]

false doomsday predictions for over 30 years is not science

Buying false misinformation from alt right websites is 100% false and is 0% Science. Period!!

 

[Frankfooter]

All these things have happened in the past even when there was no warming period.

But okay, lets say your theory is correct, can you then explain why the Roman Empire flourished during the Roman Warming period.

After you failed three times now you've found a couple of new charts and this time you think you've got something solid?
Phil, how many times do you need to fail before you understand that you don't understand?

For this chart:
1) It says Roman warming period, which means it's not global.
2) Wiki says it was within 1ºC of modern temps, which puts it at about the same temperature we're experiencing now, with the exception that this is a global temp change, not a European/North Atlantic change.

So Frankie, are you saying earth has never had warming periods, and this graph is wrong as well??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

Of course the planet has had warming periods and that chart is fine.
But humans didn't exist then.
Tell me how many people do you think the planet would support with the global temp 4ºC warmer?

 

[Frankfooter]

The "mistake" was cited in the report itself and it made international headlines. And, yes, a fuck up that enormous makes the IPCC look horrible.

It remains one of the IPCC's biggest predictions. The fact that you needed to do a Google search to learn about it confirms that you know nothing about the IPCC's reports or its predictions.
.

Bullshit.
You found only one error in 20 years of reports.
That's like 99.99999% accuracy.

Fucking excellent.

Wrong again. The IPCC's 2013 report said the temperature predictions in the 2007 report were completely off the mark (Page 15):

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

The IPCC said no such thing.
More bullshit.

You read about as well as Frankfooter. No one is using Trump's statements as the basis for challenging the IPCC's fairy-tale predictions.

Why don't we use your predictions as a basis for establishing your credibility?
What, you have a 0% average so far?
Tsk, tsk.

Why don't you write a letter to the New York Times to protest its characterization of the "much-publicized" prediction: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/earth/19climate.html

An 8 year old article?
Holy shit are you desperate.

Nonsense. I established my credentials as a card-carrying "denier" years ago.

Yup, we established your credibility years ago:

We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC

You have zero credibility.

 

[Frankfooter]

Will go with real scientific evidence of global climate change that has been carefully monitored, tested and analysed:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

These conspiracy alt right theories are mind boggling.

NASA and the IPCC are both the best sources.
Phil and moviefan have both proved it in this thread with their claims and 'evidence'.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

After you failed three times now you've found a couple of new charts and this time you think you've got something solid?
Phil, how many times do you need to fail before you understand that you don't understand?

I didnt fail at anything Frankie, I'm trying to find a graph that you like so I we can move on to the fact that earth has had lots of warming periods

Of course the planet has had warming periods and that chart is fine.
But humans didn't exist then.
Tell me how many people do you think the planet would support with the global temp 4ºC warmer?

Good, so you finally agree with me that warming periods did exist. Now answer the following:

1. What caused these warming periods?? (obviously it couldnt have been manmade CO2's).
2. Earth has warmed approximately 0.8 Celsius over the last 100 years or so. Please tell us how much of that is due to earth's natural warming cycle, and how much of that is from CO2 output?? And I want you to put it in exact percentages (for example: 90% of that 0.8C is manmade)

 

[Frankfooter]

I didnt fail at anything Frankie, I'm trying to find a graph that you like so I we can move on to the fact that earth has had lots of warming periods

You submitted 2 charts and one story.
All had major faults you were unable to understand or see.
That's a failure on your end to be able to tell garbage from science.

Good, so you finally agree with me that warming periods did exist. Now answer the following:

1. What caused these warming periods?? (obviously it couldnt have been manmade CO2's).
2. Earth has warmed approximately 0.8 Celsius over the last 100 years or so. Please tell us how much of that is due to earth's natural warming cycle, and how much of that is from CO2 output?? And I want you to put it in exact percentages (for example: 90% of that 0.8C is manmade)

What is this 'earth's natural warming cycle' that you claim exists.
That sounds like a garbage claim again.

Please describe exactly what you claim this cycle to be, with evidence that it exists as a 'cycle'.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

You submitted 2 charts and one story.
All had major faults you were unable to understand or see.
That's a failure on your end to be able to tell garbage from science

LOL....there was nothing wrong the charts. You just think you're smarter then everyone else in this thread, which you're not

What is this 'earth's natural warming cycle' that you claim exists.
That sounds like a garbage claim again.

Please describe exactly what you claim this cycle to be, with evidence that it exists as a 'cycle'

You mean you dont know earth goes through warming/cooling cycles??
In post #215 you admit earth has had warming periods. Make up your mind, Frankie: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ientists-say&p=6246807&viewfull=1#post6246807

Of course the planet has had warming periods