Hmm. So now, we're supposed to believe that 0.15ºC x 10 equals either 4 or 6.
www.theguardian.com
Such cynicism. Next, I suppose you'll be telling us Stacey Abrams isn't sincere about her commitment to wearing masks.
www.cnn.com
Ah, darn 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."
OMG!Hmm. So now, we're supposed to believe that 0.15ºC x 10 equals either 4 or 6.
"Exactly as the IPCC projected."
Warming could be worst in 10,000 years
An international group of scientists has confirmed the worst fears of environmentalists: the Earth's atmosphere could soar by almost 6C by 2100 - a rise unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.
I know exactly what it is. It's creating inflated numbers by picking La Nina years like 1999 or 2000 as the starting point for calculating temperature increases.
I also know that as we set new global records for man-made CO2 emissions, the IPCC's predicted temperature increase of 6ºC continues to be spectacularly wrong.
www.theguardian.com
Some tutoring for the guy who keeps posting lies that say I "admitted" the IPCC's predictions were accurate: "ranges of projections" aren't "predictions."
www.theguardian.com
Ok, lets give you a test.
Hey, question moviefan.Some tutoring for the guy who keeps posting lies that say I "admitted" the IPCC's predictions were accurate: "ranges of projections" aren't "predictions."
Meanwhile, I sure hope Franky's "co-editors" at the Guardian don't find out he's now telling everyone this story from 2001 was total bullshit.
I'm not familiar with the Exxon projection. But I do know the RCP8.5 model that the IPCC allowed to be promoted in the press as a "business as usual" scenario was as spectacularly wrong as the IPCC's temperature predictions.
Ah, but moviefan!I would be curious to know what other TERB members think about this.
I've been offered tutoring services from someone whose qualifications are:
- Functionally illiterate.
- Functionally innumerate.
- A total ignoramus about basic science (eg., doesn't understand the difference between naturally occurring warming and a hypothesis about man-made warming).
- A total ignoramus about history (eg., he once insisted the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990).
I'm thinking I should reject this offer.
See, you were so close to understanding it but you still failed to see it in this post.
The logic of Moviefan2: "I walked outside today and it was -2C. See? That's not warm. Global warming is a farce!"
The logic of JeanGary Diablo: The scientific method is the exact same thing as walking outside to check the weather.
Actually, the high-end number in question was "5".
And, no, I don't remember being "excited."
It doesn't look like Obama will learn anything from Nancy Pelosi.
www.foxnews.com
Well, yes, that was quite the accomplishment figuring out that 5 is more than 1. Sorry if I didn't remember the details of your conquest as clearly as you did.Actually, the high-end number in question was "5".
But I certainly do remember it took you more than a week to concede that I was right after you initially accused me of being "incredibly incompetent" in math when I said the number 5 is a 400% increase over 1.
To be more precise, I calculated the percentage increase - a calculation you originally called "frigging comedy gold" and "incredibly incompetent."
