What Carney didn’t say at Davos

JohnLarue · Feb 3, 2026

Frankfooter said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy#cite_note-fellowams-4

You know what is awesome about that link?
It shows exactly why you only use that old chart.
It shows exactly how dishonest you are about this subject.

Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy#cite_note-fellowams-4

you left out the footnotes
Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments.[5][6]

gee i wonder what [5][6] are and when they are dated from

gee whiz 2007 and 2004, 10 and 13 years before Christy published this graphic
what was that you were saying about using old information ?
you are such a fool

You use the old chart because when Christy fixed an error his satellite data showed the same warming as every other measurement. It showed the warming the IPCC predicted. You intentionally lie about this and only use a chart you know is out of date and with bad data because you know Christy's work shows the IPCC is right and you are wrong.

wrong again you scientific illiterate
the Christy graphic was 13 years after any minor correction he had made to his data and still shows the climate models to be grossly overshooting reality
the climate models are junk

Buddy, all you got are insults and bad data.
Combine that with your lack of comprehension of the basics and your dunning kruger believe that you are the great larue and its just pathetic.

[/QUOTE]
perhaps now you will understand that science requires a much greater attention to detail than just copying and pasting whatever heading you can find on the internet
you are pathetic and are completely out of your depth

No, you have been caught misleading by posting old, uncorrected data from Christie.
Not me, you are the bullshitter, buddy.

wrong again
his data is verified against 3 independent weather balloon data sets
his data is accurate

do not call me your buddy
you constantly try to mislead others and that is both despicable and extremely repulsive
you have no redeeming qualities ( other than as a bad example for others)
you are not my buddy

Frankfooter · Feb 3, 2026

JohnLarue said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy#cite_note-fellowams-4

you left out the footnotes
Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments.[5][6]

gee i wonder what [5][6] are and when they are dated from
View attachment 545282

gee whiz 2007 and 2004, 10 and 13 years before Christy published this graphic
what was that you were saying about using old information ?
you are such a fool

View attachment 545283

wrong again you scientific illiterate
the Christy graphic was 13 years after any minor correction he had made to his data and still shows the climate models to be grossly overshooting reality
the climate models are junk

perhaps now you will understand that science requires a much greater attention to detail than just copying and pasting whatever heading you can find on the internet
you are pathetic and are completely out of your depth

wrong again
his data is verified against 3 independent weather balloon data sets
his data is accurate

do not call me your buddy
you constantly try to mislead others and that is both despicable and extremely repulsive
you have no redeeming qualities ( other than as a bad example for others)
you are not my buddy

Hey buddy, you are still ignoring the results and trying to find some justification to ignore the results.
When Christy fixed his faulty satellite data collection it proved the IPCC projections to be accurate.

You posted bullshit, old and wrong data and refuse to admit you are wrong.
You are incredibly dishonest.

Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments

Since the data correction of August 1998 (and the major La Niña Pacific Ocean warming event of the same year), data collected by satellite instruments have shown an average global warming trend in the atmosphere. From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAH satellite record.[citation needed]

JohnLarue · Feb 3, 2026

Frankfooter said:
Hey buddy, you are still ignoring the results and trying to find some justification to ignore the results.
When Christy fixed his faulty satellite data collection it proved the IPCC projections to be accurate.

do not call me your buddy
you constantly try to mislead others and that is both despicable and extremely repulsive
you have no redeeming qualities ( other than as a bad example for others)
you are not my buddy

You posted bullshit, old and wrong data and refuse to admit you are wrong.
You are incredibly dishonest.

Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy#cite_note-fellowams-4

which was identified and corrected in 2004 as per the https://www.wikipedia.org/ link you provided
reading the footnotes is often important to achieve scientific understanding
you did not read the footnote

his graphic was published after 2017. 13 years after any errors were corrected ,
the Christy graph is valid, accurate and verified by 3 independent weather balloon data sets

Are you so slow, that you do not understand 2017 was after 2004 ,after the minor issue was corrected ?

please just show us that you able to confirm you understand 2017 was after 2004 ,after the minor data issue was corrected ?

Since the data correction of August 1998 (and the major La Niña Pacific Ocean warming event of the same year), data collected by satellite instruments have shown an average global warming trend in the atmosphere. From November 1978 through March 2011,

Click to expand...

Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAH satellite record.[citation needed]

Thanks for proving my point
your quote says
From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAH satellite record.
as per the Christy ' chart''
climate models 1978- = 0.0 degrees C
climate models 2011 = 0.9 degrees c
the difference = 0.9 +/-degrees C
from 1979 to 2011 is 3.2 decades

so 0.9 degrees C divided by 3.2 decades = 0.28 C per decade
vs. 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAH satellite record . as per your quote above

climate models twice as fast
you do understand 0.28 C per decade is more than 0.14 C per decade don't you?

the climate models are overstating the pace
the climate models are junk and should not be used as a predictive/ propaganda tool
the objective of science is to obtain an understanding of the facts and the truth

btw 0.14 degrees C per decade is no surprise as were still exiting an ice age

Frankfooter · Feb 3, 2026

JohnLarue said:
do not call me your buddy
you constantly try to mislead others and that is both despicable and extremely repulsive
you have no redeeming qualities ( other than as a bad example for others)
you are not my buddy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy#cite_note-fellowams-4[

Thanks for proving my point
your quote says
From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAH satellite record.
as per the Christy ' chart''
climate models 1978- = 0.0 degrees C
climate models 2011 = 0.9 degrees c
the difference = 0.9 +/-degrees C
from 1979 to 2011 is 3.2 decades

so 0.9 degrees C divided by 3.2 decades = 0.28 C per decade
vs. 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAH satellite record . as per your quote above

climate models twice as fast
you do understand 0.28 C per decade is more than 0.14 C per decade don't you?

You're being dishonest again, buddy.
First you intentionally and repeatedly use data you know that is wrong and has been corrected.
Now you are trying to compare surface temperature projections against troposphere projections.

Can you post anything honest, larue?

This is why you won't post a recent chart.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1991553298072236381

JohnLarue · Feb 4, 2026

Frankfooter said:
You're being dishonest again, buddy.
First you intentionally and repeatedly use data you know that is wrong and has been corrected.

'' wrong and has been corrected. ''

that is an oxymoron stated by the real life moron frankfooter

the data up to 2004 was corrected and is accurate
it is verified against 3 independent weather balloon data sets

Now you are trying to compare surface temperature projections against troposphere projections.

there is no projection from john Christy, the troposphere anomaly's are actual measurements, you blithering fool

Can you post anything honest, larue?

sure
here you go
Thanks for proving my point
your quote says
From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAH satellite record.
as per the Christy ' chart''
climate models 1978- = 0.0 degrees C
climate models 2011 = 0.9 degrees c
the difference = 0.9 +/-degrees C
from 1979 to 2011 is 3.2 decades

so 0.9 degrees C divided by 3.2 decades = 0.28 C per decade
vs. 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAH satellite record . as per your quote above

climate models twice as fast
you do understand 0.28 C per decade is more than 0.14 C per decade don't you?

the climate models are overstating the pace
the climate models are junk and should not be used as a predictive/ propaganda tool
the objective of science is to obtain an understanding of the facts and the truth

btw 0.14 degrees C per decade is no surprise as were still exiting an ice age

This is why you won't post a recent chart.

nope
the climate models were running way too hot in 2017 and since then there has been no admission of flaws from the climate modellers
they will still be running too hot now
that happens when you are trying to model a pre-dtermined conculsion

time for you to face the hard cold facts
the climate models are useless expensive junk
the ridiculous alarmist propaganda is based on the models
the climate con is falling apart and you are a despicable repulsive lying scientific know nothing

Frankfooter said:
You're being dishonest again, buddy.

do not call me your buddy
you constantly try to mislead others and that is both despicable and extremely repulsive
you have no redeeming qualities ( other than as a bad example for others)
you are not my buddy

hey frankenfool

you do understand 0.28 C per decade is more than 0.14 C per decade don't you?

please just show us that you able to confirm you understand 2017 was after 2004 ,after the minor data issue was corrected ?

you are embarrassing yourself....... again

Frankfooter · Feb 4, 2026

JohnLarue said:
the data up to 2004 was corrected and is accurate
it is verified against 3 independent weather balloon data sets

Buddy, you just admitted that you intentionally will not use the corrected, recent data.
Game, set, match.

You admit you are being dishonest.

JohnLarue · Feb 4, 2026

Frankfooter said:
Buddy, you just admitted that you intentionally will not use the corrected, recent data.
Game, set, match.

You admit you are being dishonest.

WTF is wrong with you ?

the data was corrected in 2004 as per the footnotes in the Wikipedia link (the link you provided), and this graph was created 13 years later after 2017
this is a verified data and it shows the climate models are useless pieces of expensive junk

please just show us that you able to confirm you understand 2017 was after 2004 ,after the minor data issue was corrected ?
you can not possibly be that god damn stupid not to understand 2017 was after 2004 ..... or could you ?

you posted

Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAH satellite record.[citation needed]

yet the climate models predicted warming at twice that rate during the same time period
it is physically impossible for the atmosphere to warm the surface faster than the atmosphere is warming
the models are junk

you are beyond stupid

do not call me your buddy
you constantly try to mislead others and that is both despicable and extremely repulsive
you have no redeeming qualities ( other than as a bad example for others)
you are not my buddy

here is a hint for you: people that are disgusted with you are not your buddy's
here is another hint for you: i would walk 20 miles through a freezing snow storm just to get as far away from you as possible

Frankfooter · Feb 4, 2026

JohnLarue said:
WTF is wrong with you ?

the data was corrected in 2004 as per the footnotes in the Wikipedia link (the link you provided), and this graph was created 13 years later after 2017
this is a verified data and it shows the climate models are useless pieces of expensive junk

This is a chart with the most recent data from your UAH source, the one you refuse to accept because it shows your arguments are wrong.
Warming in the troposphere followed IPCC projections from the one source you accept.
But you won't accept the recent data and only post a 10 year old chart.

You are intentionally posting bullshit and misinformation.
You are incredibly dishonest.

JohnLarue · Feb 4, 2026

Frankfooter said:
This is a chart with the most recent data from your UAH source, the one you refuse to accept because it shows your arguments are wrong.
Warming in the troposphere followed IPCC projections from the one source you accept.
But you won't accept the recent data and only post a 10 year old chart.

You are intentionally posting bullshit and misinformation.
You are incredibly dishonest.

too funny
it is astounding how stupid you are

from your post

proxy temperature increased at 1.56 +/- 0.06 k/ century

or 0.156 C per decade
pretty consistent with the 0.14 C per decade for UAH satellite data from the earlier timeframe

From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAH satellite record.

Click to expand...

but nowhere near the 0.28 C per decade predicted by the piece of shit climate models

as per the Christy ' chart''
climate models 1978- = 0.0 degrees C
climate models 2011 = 0.9 degrees c
the difference = 0.9 +/-degrees C
from 1979 to 2011 is 3.2 decades

so 0.9 degrees C divided by 3.2 decades = 0.28 C per decade

You are intentionally posting bullshit and misinformation.
You are incredibly dishonest.

you are incredibly stupid

here is me

and here you are

Frankfooter · Feb 4, 2026

JohnLarue said:
but nowhere near the 0.28 C per decade predicted by the piece of shit climate models

Ok, this is one of those points where I have to ask whether you are really this stupid or just really dishonest.

The IPCC projected about 0.2ºC per decade in surface temperature warming.
The 2017 UAH chart measures troposphere temperatures, not surface temperatures.
Now you are comparing apples (troposphere readings) with oranges (surface projections)
Are you that stupid, or that dishonest?

We are on track for RCP 8.5, the worst case scenario that will be devastating to humanity.

Meanwhile, if you want to talk about surface temperatures lets do it and lets only use surface temperature measurements.
Or are you too stupid to understand the difference between surface and tropospere?

JohnLarue · Feb 4, 2026

Frankfooter said:
The 2017 UAH chart measures troposphere temperatures, not surface temperatures.

you kept on asking for an updated UAH chart
you found one and it confirmed the climate models are running too hot

Now you are comparing apples (troposphere readings) with oranges (surface projections)
Are you that stupid, or that dishonest?

too funny

why did you want an updated UAH satellite chart ?
you demand i produce one over and over
now that you obtained one, you want to pretend UAH satellite does not exist

look stupid

the AGW theory predicts the warning will occur in the troposphere. that is best place to look
there is a reason scientists have been sending millions of weather balloons into the atmosphere for over one hundred years
the atmosphere can not physically heat up the surface at a faster pace than the atmosphere

We are on track for RCP 8.5, the worst case scenario that will be devastating to humanity.

more bullshit propaganda
What is a "Worst Case" Climate Scenario?

RCP8.5 is not simply “highly unlikely” — it is falsified,

Click to expand...

meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively in Burgess et al. 2021, from which the annotated figure below comes from.

The gap between the black arrow (RCP8.5) and the blue arrow (reality) indicates that RCP8.5 is not just unlikely, but impossible — it is already wildly wrong. Since we published that paper, that gap between RCP8.5 and reality has only grown larger (stay tuned on that!).

It is an interesting thought experiment to ask what it would take for the real world to “catch up” to RCP8.5. Setting aside the real-world plausibility of such a “catch-up” scenario, as a matter of simple math, starting in 2025 that new scenario would have to be much more aggressive than RCP8.5, and thus even more extreme. If RCP8.5 is implausible, then a new, catch-up-to-RCP8.5 scenario would necessarily be even more implausible.

Meanwhile, if you want to talk about surface temperatures lets do it and lets only use surface temperature measurements.

meanwhile ......no

the surface temperature record is not at all suitable

it is incomplete
it is filled with errors
it is biased by the urban island heat effect
it has been fiddled with

Or are you too stupid to understand the difference between surface and tropospere?

you are wrong, just like you have consistently been wrong

you were demanding an updated UAH satellite chart and now that you got one you do not want to see satellite data ever again

you are a complete fool stupid beyond comprehension
get lost

Frankfooter · Feb 4, 2026

JohnLarue said:
you kept on asking for an updated UAH chart
you found one and it confirmed the climate models are running too hot

too funny

why did you want an updated UAH satellite chart ?
you demand i produce one over and over
now that you obtained one, you want to pretend UAH satellite does not exist

I posted an updated UAH chart because it shows warming in the troposphere as the IPCC projected.
You aren't bright enough to know why it shows the same warming now,.

Now you're adding on by saying you're not smart enough to understand the difference between projections for the troposphere against measurements for surface temperature.

What did you say?

look stupid

JohnLarue · Feb 4, 2026

Frankfooter said:
I posted an updated UAH chart because it shows warming in the troposphere as the IPCC projected.

no it does not

do you not understand the fact that 0.28 C per decade degrees / decade is not 0.14 or 0.156 degrees / decade ?

WTF is wrong with you

You aren't bright enough to know why it shows the same warming now,.

no
0.28 degrees / decade is not 0.14 degrees / decade
since you need help, ask a child if 0.28 C degrees / decade is the same as 0.14 or 0.156 degrees / decade

Now you're adding on by saying you're not smart enough to understand the difference between projections for the troposphere against measurements for surface temperature.

?????? WTF ??????

you are too stupid to comprehend
you do not understand anything about the Christy graph other than it displays the failure of your climate con and thus you need to attack it

at no point did John Christy ever make projections for the troposphere.
John Christy collected actual measurements in the troposphere and compared them with projections from the climate models

all the projections are all from the climate models
and they failed

it is looking more likely you failed out of grade school rather than high school

JohnLarue · Feb 4, 2026

Frankfooter said:
Ok, this is one of those points where I have to ask whether you are really this stupid or just really dishonest.

The IPCC projected about 0.2ºC per decade in surface temperature warming.
The 2017 UAH chart measures troposphere temperatures, not surface temperatures.
Now you are comparing apples (troposphere readings) with oranges (surface projections)
Are you that stupid, or that dishonest?

We are on track for RCP 8.5, the worst case scenario that will be devastating to humanity.

Meanwhile, if you want to talk about surface temperatures lets do it and lets only use surface temperature measurements.
Or are you too stupid to understand the difference between surface and tropospere?

AI Overview

Under the high-emissions RCP 8.5 scenario (often referred to as "business as usual"), global temperatures are projected to rise rapidly, with rates often cited around
0.3°C to 0.5°C+ per decade over the 21st century.

2.5 to 3.5 times the observed UAH increase
And that makes all the difference in the world
RCP 8.5 is pure nonsense and is a pure propaganda tool..... for unscrupulous misleading lying fools like you

Frankfooter · Feb 4, 2026

JohnLarue said:
no it does not

do you not understand the fact that 0.28 C per decade degrees / decade is not 0.14 or 0.156 degrees / decade ?

WTF is wrong with you

no
0.28 degrees / decade is not 0.14 degrees / decade
since you need help, ask a child if 0.28 C degrees / decade is the same as 0.14 or 0.156 degrees / decade

View attachment 546080

?????? WTF ??????

you are too stupid to comprehend
you do not understand anything about the Christy graph other than it displays the failure of your climate con and thus you need to attack it

at no point did John Christy ever make projections for the troposphere.
John Christy collected actual measurements in the troposphere and compared them with projections from the climate models

all the projections are all from the climate models
and they failed

it is looking more likely you failed out of grade school rather than high school

Stop posting the 10 year old chart that you know uses data that has since been corrected.
It makes you look really stupid AND really dishonest.

This is the latest chart from your choice of sources for temperatures in the troposphere.

Frankfooter · Feb 4, 2026

JohnLarue said:
at no point did John Christy ever make projections for the troposphere.
John Christy collected actual measurements in the troposphere and compared them with projections from the climate models

all the projections are all from the climate models
and they failed

You are the one that wants to compare a 10 year old chart with bad data of temperature in the troposphere, or around the height of the clouds, with new projections for the temperature on the surface of the planet, where humans live. And you think its stupid to compare apples to apples and think you can get away with the most lame bait and switch ever.

This is what surface temp projections look like when compared to surface temp readings.

JohnLarue · Feb 4, 2026

Frankfooter said:
Stop posting the 10 year old chart that you know uses data that has since been corrected.
It makes you look really stupid AND really dishonest.

This is the latest chart from your choice of sources for temperatures in the troposphere.

wrong again frankenfool

that graphic does not show the ridiculous climate model predictions

JohnLarue · Feb 4, 2026

Frankfooter said:
You are the one that wants to compare a 10 year old chart with bad data of temperature in the troposphere, or around the height of the clouds, with new projections for the temperature on the surface of the planet, where humans live. And you think its stupid to compare apples to apples and think you can get away with the most lame bait and switch ever.

and now you are back to this ridiculous and idiotic argument

this has been explained to you multiple time

you just cycle through your trash ideas
you get proven wrong and you revert back to a previously disproven idiotic idea

you do not even understand the difference between a prediction and an experimental measurement
you are a scientific ignoramus

no wonder you failed out of school
you are too stupid to learn

the satellite data is valid
it has been verified via 3 separate weather balloon data sets
and it is monitoring exactly where AGW theory predicts any warming will occur

your climate con is falling apart
i suggest you seek an alternative pathway for your failure to implement global socialism / communism

the climate models are expensive pieces of junk

"Beware. If you’re doing good science, it may lead you into politically incorrect areas. If you’re a good scientist, you will follow them," Nobel prizewinner Dr. John Clauser highlights the crisis of pseudoscience, "I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events."

stupid phrase like 'bait and switch' have no place in science
you are a ridiculous fool

Frankfooter · Feb 4, 2026

JohnLarue said:
wrong again frankenfool

that graphic does not show the ridiculous climate model predictions

View attachment 546153

Oh, you are really, really not very bright.
You don't think that the red line that says 'average of 102 model runs' is a projection?

That's really quite amazing.

Frankfooter · Feb 4, 2026

JohnLarue said:
the satellite data is valid

Then use the current satellite data, not the 10 year old chart.

What Carney didn’t say at Davos

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

Attachments

dangling member

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

Well-known member

dangling member

dangling member

Well-known member

Well-known member

dangling member

dangling member