Climate Change

[JohnLarue]

He sent a questionaire out to IPCC scientists.
What kind of degree and background do you think you have to have for that?

a high school diploma and experience managing an email account
odd how he had to use the Guardian in order to get his rubbish published

jacobson is just rehashing failed propaganda
all of the IPCC estimates come from failed computer models

failed computer models which

1. can't replicate the past -a bare minimum for any predictive model
2. do not agree with each other - settled science you say ? not even close
3. do not agree with actual experimental data - the satellite data is verified by independent weather balloon data sets

this spaghetti mess is not science
it is the result of trying to force a proof of a predetermined conclusion & failing miserably

 

[Skoob]

This is probably really complicated for you skoob, but lets give it a try.

larue posts papers that claim to be scientific breakthroughs that dispute the work of thousands of scientists by the IPCC and they are written by non climatologists. Those are shoddy attempts at science written by people who are not experts in their fields.

This was not a scientific paper, it was a series of letters with a poll that required the same amount of expertise as it does to create a terb poll.
Meaning, everyone on the board can do it except you.

I know that's too much for you and you won't be able to understand it so you'll just write some random shit about squirming or something instead.
What you absolutely won't do is talk about what the poll means.

Disney should create a roller coaster thrill ride that mimics your responses with all the twists & turns.

You posted something from a casino consultant in your effort to show some kind of "proof" to back up your fear mongering campaign.

I simply pointed out that you accuse others for doing the same thing, ie using unreliable sources.

 

[Frankfooter]

a high school diploma and experience managing an email account
odd how he had to use the Guardian in order to get his rubbish published

jacobson is just rehashing failed propaganda
all of the IPCC estimates come from failed computer models

No, larue.
Jacobson sent out a simple questionaire to IPCC climatologists about how much warming they thought we'd see by 2100 based on government actions and present projections. He asked the experts and then recorded their answers. Its dead simple.

Climatologists think we are warming the planet enough that your kids and grandkids will live through massively different climate.

View attachment 323599

How stupid do you have to be, larue, to keep posting bait and switch charts?
Do you think that one day one of these charts that measures the temperature in the troposphere, in the clouds, against projections in the surface will not be laughed at? Are you so stupid that you still don't know the difference between the surface of the planet where we live and the troposphere?
What is wrong with you?

Meanwhile, the world just keeps getting warmer and warmer.

Copernicus: Global temperature record streak continues – April 2024 was the hottest on record | Copernicus

C3S routinely publishes monthly climate bulletins reporting on the changes observed in global surface air and sea temperatures, sea ice cover and hydrological variables.

climate.copernicus.eu

 

[Frankfooter]

Disney should create a roller coaster thrill ride that mimics your responses with all the twists & turns.

You posted something from a casino consultant in your effort to show some kind of "proof" to back up your fear mongering campaign.

I simply pointed out that you accuse others for doing the same thing, ie using unreliable sources.

That is so skoobid.
You're claiming that you need a degree is stats or climatology to send a simple poll out to scientists?

 

[Skoob]

That is so skoobid.
You're claiming that you need a degree is stats or climatology to send a simple poll out to scientists?

You mean asking funded fear mongers for their opinions to justify further fear mongering?

 

[Frankfooter]

You mean asking funded fear mongers for their opinions to justify further fear mongering?

Hey skoob, how do you fund tens of thousands of scientists in over 100 countries, over 4 decades and through every sort of government possible, to all come up with the same scientific results?

 

[Skoob]

Hey skoob, how do you fund tens of thousands of scientists in over 100 countries, over 4 decades and through every sort of government possible, to all come up with the same scientific results?

If they weren't funded they couldn't exist.
The results aren't the same and are constantly being challenged and modified.

 

[Frankfooter]

If they weren't funded they couldn't exist.
The results aren't the same and are constantly being challenged and modified.

How does that work, skoob?
How do you get scientists funded by right wing governments and left wingers, over 4 decades and in over 100 countries to all come up with the same results?

You claim its a conspiracy, who is paying them all to do the same thing?
If you think it was biased government funding, how come it was the same under rump and the Bushes?

 

[JohnLarue]

You mean asking funded fear mongers for their opinions to justify further fear mongering?

yeah

No problem = no funding
No funding = no problem

this is out dated

https://www.oecd.org/climate-change/finance-usd-100-billion-goal/#:~:text=Public%20climate%20finance%20(bilateral%20and,USD%2089.6%20billion%20in%202021

.

Key findings include:

• In 2021, total climate finance provided and mobilised by developed countries for developing countries amounted to USD 89.6 billion, showing a significant 7.6% increase over the previous year.
  
  
• Public climate finance (bilateral and multilateral) almost doubled over the 2013-21 period, from USD 38 billion to USD 73.1 billion, accounting for the vast majority of the total USD 89.6 billion in 2021.
  
  
• Adaptation finance dropped by USD 4 billion (-14%) in 2021, resulting in a decrease in its share of total climate finance from 34% to 27%. At the same time, cross-cutting finance, increased from USD 6 billion in 2020 to USD 11.2 billion in 2021.
  
  
• Mobilised private climate finance, for which comparable data are only available from 2016, amounted to USD 14.4 billion in 2021, or 16% of the total.

and yet Frankfooter and the rest of the climate lunatics seems to think a scientist who accepted a $10K grant to fund a summer student, needs to be "cancelled" because the money was tied to Exxon

 

[JohnLarue]

Hey skoob, how do you fund tens of thousands of scientists in over 100 countries, over 4 decades and through every sort of government possible, to all come up with the same scientific results?

this is not "the same scientific results"

 

[Frankfooter]

this is not "the same scientific results"

View attachment 323781

That chart is incredibly stupid bait and switch, larue.
It charts surface temperature IPCC projections with troposphere measurements from un updated satellite readings.

Its stupid you think it proves anything other than your total scientific ignorance.
You can't even see why its wrong, that's pathetic.

 

[Frankfooter]

yeah

No problem = no funding
No funding = no problem

this is out dated



View attachment 323763

https://www.oecd.org/climate-change/finance-usd-100-billion-goal/#:~:text=Public%20climate%20finance%20(bilateral%20and,USD%2089.6%20billion%20in%202021

.

and yet Frankfooter and the rest of the climate lunatics seems to think a scientist who accepted a $10K grant to fund a summer student, needs to be "cancelled" because the money was tied to Exxon

Sure larue, like the oil industry is out for your good.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/shell-greenpeace-quest-1.7196792

 

[Skoob]

How does that work, skoob?
How do you get scientists funded by right wing governments and left wingers, over 4 decades and in over 100 countries to all come up with the same results?

You claim its a conspiracy, who is paying them all to do the same thing?
If you think it was biased government funding, how come it was the same under rump and the Bushes?

They all have something in common: making money.
If that means funding "research" to justify special projects that result in people making money, then it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum someone is on.

And they didn't all come up with the same results as you suggest. It has been a constant bickering of the facts and interpretation of the data that is based on computer models that are easily tailored to support a narrative. That narrative through the years has been to justify initiatives that ultimately make the funders a lot of money.
You think too small.

 

[Skoob]

Sure larue, like the oil industry is out for your good.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/shell-greenpeace-quest-1.7196792

Norway seems to think so. You should too.

 

[Frankfooter]

They all have something in common: making money.
If that means funding "research" to justify special projects that result in people making money, then it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum someone is on.

And they didn't all come up with the same results as you suggest. It has been a constant bickering of the facts and interpretation of the data that is based on computer models that are easily tailored to support a narrative. That narrative through the years has been to justify initiatives that ultimately make the funders a lot of money.
You think too small.

99.9% of climatologists back the IPCC reports, which summarizes the findings.
Scientists get funded for proposals to study areas of interest, not on findings.
How do you get 100 countries to all fund research and have it all come out with similar findings?

Your conspiracy theory makes zero sense.

 

[Skoob]

99.9% of climatologists back the IPCC reports, which summarizes the findings.
Scientists get funded for proposals to study areas of interest, not on findings.
How do you get 100 countries to all fund research and have it all come out with similar findings?

Your conspiracy theory makes zero sense.

99.9%? haha that's funny

 

[Frankfooter]

99.9%? haha that's funny

You are so clueless.

The ‘97% climate consensus’ is over. Now it’s well above 99% (and the evidence is even stronger than that)

One of the most famous stats in the climate debate is the 97% of scientists who endorse the consensus on human-induced global heating. Ahead of the Glasgow summit, that figure has climbed even higher.

theconversation.com

 

[Skoob]

You are so clueless.

The ‘97% climate consensus’ is over. Now it’s well above 99% (and the evidence is even stronger than that)

One of the most famous stats in the climate debate is the 97% of scientists who endorse the consensus on human-induced global heating. Ahead of the Glasgow summit, that figure has climbed even higher.

theconversation.com

You are so gullible.
A for-profit website that was used to search for reports. Yep, no bias there.
And you use this as your proof that 99.9% of scientists believe this is all true? That's quite deceptive of you.

btw volcano eruptions are now caused by climate change? hahahahaha that's funny.

 

[Frankfooter]

You are so gullible.
A for-profit website that was used to search for reports. Yep, no bias there.
And you use this as your proof that 99.9% of scientists believe this is all true? That's quite deceptive of you.

btw volcano eruptions are now caused by climate change? hahahahaha that's funny.

Skoob, your ignorance is constantly surprising.
This was an article that cited a scientific paper, the link was in the first paragraph.
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
Mark Lynas4,1, Benjamin Z Houlton2 and Simon Perry3
Published 19 October 2021 • © 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd


Our finding is that the broadly-defined scientific consensus likely far exceeds 99% regarding the role of anthropogenic GHG emissions in modern climate change, and may even be as high as 99.9%. Of course, the prevalence of mis/disinformation about the role of GHG emissions in modern climate change is unlikely to be driven purely by genuine scientific illiteracy or lack of understanding [14]. Even so, in our view it remains important to continue to inform society on the state of the evidence. According to the IPCC AR6 summary and many other previous studies, mitigating future warming requires urgent efforts to eliminate fossil fuels combustion and other major sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Our study helps confirm that there is no remaining scientific uncertainty about the urgency and gravity of this task.

 

[Skoob]

Skoob, your ignorance is constantly surprising.
This was an article that cited a scientific paper, the link was in the first paragraph.
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
Mark Lynas4,1, Benjamin Z Houlton2 and Simon Perry3
Published 19 October 2021 • © 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Our finding is that the broadly-defined scientific consensus likely far exceeds 99% regarding the role of anthropogenic GHG emissions in modern climate change, and may even be as high as 99.9%. Of course, the prevalence of mis/disinformation about the role of GHG emissions in modern climate change is unlikely to be driven purely by genuine scientific illiteracy or lack of understanding [14]. Even so, in our view it remains important to continue to inform society on the state of the evidence. According to the IPCC AR6 summary and many other previous studies, mitigating future warming requires urgent efforts to eliminate fossil fuels combustion and other major sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Our study helps confirm that there is no remaining scientific uncertainty about the urgency and gravity of this task.

The article you shared said this:

Both studies searched the Web of Science database – an independent worldwide repository of scientific paper citations – using the keywords “global climate change” and “global warming”. However, the recent study added “climate change” to the other two keyword searches, because the authors found that most climate-contrarian papers would not have been returned with only the two original terms.


The link in the first paragraph essentially said the same thing:

2. Method
Previous attempts to quantify the consensus on climate change have employed many different methodologies, varying from expert elicitation to examination of abstracts returned by a keyword search. We base our methodology on C13 with some important refinements. We searched the Web of Science for English language 'articles' added between the dates of 2012 and November 2020 with the keywords 'climate change', 'global climate change' and 'global warming'.

Do you even read the bs you post?