Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
Except for the fact I've never claimed they did. You'll catch up with the class one day.
You must be reading a different thread than I. Feel free to quote the post(s) where I've claimed that.
Just for fun, how do imagine that a small group if scientists could manipulate the results of thousands of independent research projects in 100 different countries?
For me to answer that I'd have to spend a year among these guys, see how well they share data, see how many of them have invested in carbon credit trade, see how many have invested in alternative energy companies or stock, see how honest and ethical they are.....etc....etc. Maybe its just a few who are manipulating data, or maybe a lot of them are. Impossible to answer without having more inside information.
And again, I'm not saying they are corrupt per se, I'm saying after Climategate I dont trust these clowns
Makes sense.
I wonder what ever happened to this graph, which was on Page 39 of the second draft of Chapter 1 of the IPCC's AR5 report:
http://climatefailfiles.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ch1-introduction_wg1ar5_sod_ch01_all_final.pdf
It shows quite clearly that temperature increases have been nowhere near what the IPCC predicted -- and that the most recently recorded temperatures are below the full range of IPCC predictions.
No wonder that graph didn't make it into the final cut.
Actually, the five year running averages isn't that far off AR4(2007) or SAR(1995). That's the orange and blue parts respectively of the graph for those of you who can't read.Makes sense.
I wonder what ever happened to this graph, which was on Page 39 of the second draft of Chapter 1 of the IPCC's AR5 report:
http://climatefailfiles.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ch1-introduction_wg1ar5_sod_ch01_all_final.pdf
It shows quite clearly that temperature increases have been nowhere near what the IPCC predicted -- and that the most recently recorded temperatures are below the full range of IPCC predictions.
No wonder that graph didn't make it into the final cut.
Error bars look within the predicted range for AR4 except in 2008. and if 2011 has similar error bars, it will be in range too.
And considering 2012 and 2013 are amongst the 10 hottest years on record, your 'spectacular failure' claim is ridiculous.
I see.
So after the oil lobby illegally hacked into email accounts and took emails out of context, after they were investigated and exonerated 8 times by independent inquiries the lesson you took out of it was that researchers weren't trustworthy.
I see.
That's not the most recent temperatures recorded.
And I thought you said you didn't think those bloggers trustworthy?
LOL. AR4 was only released in 2007. If you look at the actual temperatures after 2007, it's not looking so good. And if the temperatures for 2012 and 2013 were to be added, it gets even worse.
Ah, but cheer up. The IPCC is still predicting utter catastrophe, so you still have something to look forward to.
How many times do I have to remind you that 13 of the 14 warmest dates on record happened since 2000?
And that 2013 was the fourth warmest year on record?
As for the catastrophe, we are already seeing it in extreme weather around the world.
A lot of the political instability globally is food based already, as extreme weather kills more crops expect more.
Does that make you happy?
I asked this question a couple of times and didn't get a creditable answer. What would the result be if we actually heeded the researchers warnings and did take measures to mitigate the advance of GW? MF2 is at least taking the stance now, I think, as he has moved the goal posts a few times, that GW exists, but not as bad as the researchers say?
If you believe those independent inquiries were really independent and objective, you are either incredibly stupid or incredibly naive.
Those independent inquiries were a bit like the police investigating the police. Think of it as how the SIU works now, they rarely convict one of their own cops, unless the evidence is so preponderous they have no other choice.
But keep thinking IPCC is squeaky clean if that makes you feel better, groggy. And if it makes you sleep better at night, thats even better
So MF2 doesn't believe the science and you don't believe the scientists, I guess this thread is pretty much done.
I don't believe all scientists are honest and ethical, no. In the end they are human beings like rest of us
AK, today is April 1 and for today only we are going to agree that Blackrock is the most intelligent member on Terb.
And is based in your personal bias, some blog you read or another wacko conspiracy theory?
Sure I do. I've said all along that I accept the results that show the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.
I believe.
Not quite, but you're getting ... warm?
I have said I accept the fact the climate changes, as it always has, and that there have been periods in recent times where the planet has warmed.
That doesn't quite make me a believer in GW, if we accept that the premise of GW is that man-made CO2 emissions are a primary driver of changes to the climate.
In the absence of evidence, and given that the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong, I remain very skeptical of the premise that man-made CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm in unnatural ways.
