Frankfooter's posts from 2015 show the IPCC's predictions of global warming were spectacularly wrong

[Frankfooter]

1999: 0.38ºC
2021: 0.85ºC

Hey! More cherrypicking dates!
Hilarious.

How many times are you going to try this incredibly lame line, moviefan?
I already called you out for this multiple times now, starting in post #17.

Funny, that chart shows 0.39ºC for 2000 and 1.02ºC for 2020. That would make the difference 0.63ºC over two decades or 0.3º per decade. That's using your own cherry picking.
By your claims you're now saying that 0.15 is more than 0.3.
Whoopsies, amazing what using your own words does.

Or we could also cherry pick 1999 to 2019, 0.38ºC to 0.98ºC. That gives us 0.3ºC a decade as well.
Isn't cherry picking fun!

 

[Frankfooter]

It was in 2015 that Frankfooter attempted to defend the spectacularly wrong predictions.

You mean the year that you bet the global temperature wouldn't hit 0.83ºC?
And you say I'm the one that's 'spectacularly wrong'?
Bwhahahahahahahahaha

 

[Moviefan-2]

I believe he is an editor for the Guardian.

I sure hope not.

I'm no fan of the Guardian but even I wouldn't want to see the newspaper reduced to hiring editors who are functionally illiterate.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Pick 1999 and its 0.3ºC a decade?

Hey! More cherrypicking dates!
Hilarious.

Well, if Frankfooter says his selection of 1999 was "cherrypicking," who am I to argue?

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the years he selects as starting points are always La Nina years where the temperature is well below average.

Such blatant desperation only confirms that he knows as well as anyone the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

(And he still hasn't explained how the alleged 0.2ºC per decade projection supported his statement that the 100-year median projection of 4ºC "looked accurate" ).

 

[K Douglas]

For some reason, when it comes to covid and vaccines, you and the other right wingers are not as strong a proponent of the scientific community.

I guess convenience has to factor into the equation.

Correction we are not proponents of the political science community. We support the real science which is largely being suppressed as mis/disinformation.

 

[Frankfooter]

Well, if Frankfooter says his selection of 1999 was "cherrypicking," who am I to argue?

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the years he selects as starting points are always La Nina years where the temperature is well below average.

Wow, I'm amazed, moviefan.
Its almost like you understand the concept of cherry picking.
I'm really impressed, I didn't think you had it in you.
Congrats!

Now you know why you should stop it.

 

[JohnLarue]

No net atmospheric warming relative to a 30 year average and 0.6 C cooler than 1998, 0.7 C cooler than 5 years ago
Despite CO2 relentless upwards trajectory
IR absorbance is instantaneous

Nothing here that can not be attributed to natural variability

 

[oil&gas]

Correction we are not proponents of the political science community. We support the real science which is largely being suppressed as mis/disinformation.

As a scientist myself I am biased towards the science community. When it
comes to science pertinent to climate change I also believe not only what
the scientists say but what they do as well. Below is the link to the details
of travel deals and local accommodation for scientists attending the conference--
International Global Atmospheric Chemistry--to be held in Manchester later this year:

International Global Atmospheric Chemistry | 10times

1 people interested. Check out who is attending ✭ exhibiting ✭ speaking ✭ schedule & agenda ✭ reviews ✭ timing ✭ entry ticket fees. 2022 edition of International Global Atmospheric Chemistry will be held at The University of Manchester, Manchester starting on 11th September. It is a 5 day event...

10times.com

So you can see in the middle of a global pandemic the people most
knowledgeable about climate change already can't wait to plan for an
event for them to spend their research money on plane tickets and oversea
hotels. These scientists certainly are aware there is a thing called internet
that would allow them to share their recent research finding without dumping
more CO2 into earth's atmosphere. I presume they are smart enough to know
the rising global mean temperature generated by climate modelling calculation
is just a construct not a real measurable physical quantity.

Climate may be changing but it will be business as usual nonetheless. And
in all likelihood growing carbon emission would not destroy the Earth at least
according to the scientists.

 

[K Douglas]

I go by the satellite record because that is the best approximation of global temperature.
"The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land)."

And that includes 2 major El Nino events.

 

[K Douglas]

As a scientist myself I am biased towards the science community. When it
comes to science pertinent to climate change I also believe not only what
the scientists say but what they do as well. Below is the link to the details
of travel deals and local accommodation for scientists attending the conference--
International Global Atmospheric Chemistry--to be held in Manchester later this year:

International Global Atmospheric Chemistry | 10times

1 people interested. Check out who is attending ✭ exhibiting ✭ speaking ✭ schedule & agenda ✭ reviews ✭ timing ✭ entry ticket fees. 2022 edition of International Global Atmospheric Chemistry will be held at The University of Manchester, Manchester starting on 11th September. It is a 5 day event...

10times.com

So you can see in the middle of a global pandemic the people most
knowledgeable about climate change already can't wait to plan for an
event for them to spend their research money on plane tickets and oversea
hotels. These scientists certainly are aware there is a thing called internet
that would allow them to share their recent research finding without dumping
more CO2 into earth's atmosphere. I presume they are smart enough to know
the rising global mean temperature generated by climate modelling calculation
is just a construct not a real measurable physical quantity.

Climate may be changing but it will be business as usual nonetheless. And
in all likelihood growing carbon emission would not destroy the Earth at least
according to the scientists.

Dwight Eisenhower warned us in the late 1950's about 2 things. The first being the Military Industrial Complex. The second being the dangers of the politicization of science. We are seeing both play out in real time.
The scientists have never believed that human carbon emissions will lead to climate disaster. It's the political activists that have taken the science and amped it up to alarmist levels. Making dire predictions about sinking coastlines and melting ice sheets and glaciers the extinction of polar bears and so on and so on. And they have been able to convince a lot of weak minded individuals who blindly 'trust' the 'science'.

 

[Frankfooter]

As a scientist myself I am biased towards the science community. When it
comes to science pertinent to climate change I also believe not only what
the scientists say but what they do as well. Below is the link to the details
of travel deals and local accommodation for scientists attending the conference--
International Global Atmospheric Chemistry--to be held in Manchester later this year:

Now the oil industry rep here is trying to shame scientists for meeting to talk about climate change?
And claiming that you're really a scientist all along?
Wow.

 

[Frankfooter]

I go by the satellite record because that is the best approximation of global temperature.
"The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land)."

And that includes 2 major El Nino events.

Satellite data shows the same warming.
Its here listed on this chart, I challenge to identify which are surface temps and which are satellite, just to check to see if you have any idea what you are talking about.

 

[JohnLarue]

I presume they are smart enough to know
the rising global mean temperature generated by climate modelling calculation
is just a construct not a real measurable physical quantity.

They should be smart enough to know we can not control our climate.
They also should be smart enough to know the climate models are number nodding guesses and do not represent our extremely complex and chaotic climate , not even close
If they are demanding absurd policies to try controlling our climate they are hypocrites
If they want to attend a conference to pursue scientific discovery, happy travels

No doubt some of them will present some hypocritical and unobtainable demands before taking a limo for one to the airport & their return flight home

 

[Frankfooter]

They should be smart enough to know we can not control our climate.

'Affect'

The word is 'affect' the climate.
We are affecting our climate through pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Get it right.

 

[jcpro]

Here's a living proof that the climate hysteria is bullshit. Look carefully at the pictures.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1490275529735421953

 

[Frankfooter]

Here's a living proof that the climate hysteria is bullshit. Look carefully at the pictures.

Wow!
You're a scientist too!

Clearly climate change can't be true if rich people can still build houses.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I go by the satellite record because that is the best approximation of global temperature.
"The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land)."

And that includes 2 major El Nino events.

Pretty much the same trend as what the NASA graph shows for temperatures in the 21st century.

 

[Frankfooter]

Pretty much the same trend as what the NASA graph shows for temperatures in the 21st century.

Yes, as you stated. Exactly as the IPCC projected.

The Met Office numbers on your graph confirm what I said yesterday -- a temperature increase of about 1ºC over 135 years.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Pick 1999 and its 0.3ºC a decade
Pick 2000 and its the same.

Wow, I'm amazed, moviefan.
Its almost like you understand the concept of cherry picking.
I'm really impressed, I didn't think you had it in you.
Congrats!

Now you know why you should stop it.

The stark reality of the IPCC's failures is really getting to Franky.

Check the above quotes. He tells me to "pick 1999" and then accuses me of "cherry picking" after I "pick 1999."

 

[jcpro]

Wow!
You're a scientist too!

Clearly climate change can't be true if rich people can still build houses.

Right on the edge of the largest ocean in the world. Yeah, Obama is REALLY worried about the rising sea levels. ROTFLMAO!!