No, never said anything of the sort.
You're trolling again.
# 5 on the science denier list of tactics.
The global energy crisis - Green fairy tales collide with reality
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
You're trolling again.
# 5 on the science denier list of tactics.
In other words, your beliefs are based on faith, not science.
And nothing can change the views of religious.
Including your own personal history on predictions, which is way worse than the IPCC.
The IPCC spent more than two years defending its prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
In fact, former IPCC chairperson Rajendra Pachauri went so far as to accuse the Indian official who challenged the prediction of practising "voodoo science."
Raina demands apology for Pachauri’s ‘voodoo science’ comment
Environment News:Raina demands apology for Pachauri’s ‘voodoo science’ comment
The Himalayan prediction was the most prominent prediction in the IPCC's fourth assessment report in 2007, attracting major headlines throughout the world, including dominant coverage in the New York Times and elsewhere.
Furthermore, Pachauri - now deceased - used the shocking headline to raise funds for his institute.
No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy
Head of UN climate change body 'not at fault' for false claim Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035
www.theguardian.com
NY Times Fluffs Glaciergate - The American Interest
John Tierney, science reporter at the New York Times, is one of the better reporters out there; in the past he’s attracted the wrath of the climate change true believers. And he makes a lot of good points in his piece in today’s paper as he defends both IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri and Al Gore …
www.the-american-interest.com
Frankfooter insists predictions like this one have a solid foundation in scientific research. Let's test that point.
Frankfooter, please provide us with the facts that supported the prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
You're following the science denier script.
I asked you what proof would be necessary to convince you and since you are acting on faith and no proof can convince you, you are trying to change the subject with script element #5, claiming the science has to be perfect. There is no point even debating that claim, since you won't accept facts that run contrary to your faith.
Lets just remind you that you said you were leaving this debate and that you couldn't even predict the temperature of one year, so by your own standards your claims are worthless.
I'll stick with the accurate, Nobel winning, actual scientists.
Let's be a little more accurate. You asked me what evidence would persuade me.
I answered the question: I would like to see evidence that the IPCC can make predictions that don't continue to be spectacularly wrong.
Meanwhile, you couldn't find any evidence to back the most prominent prediction from the IPCC's 2007 report - a preposterous prediction that had no basis in reality, yet went unchallenged by the IPCC's devout followers for over two years.
Talk about faith-based belief.
Putting aside the IPCC's disastrous track record, here's what I really don't get about the climate bedwetters.
They've spent more than 30 years trying to demonize and marginalize anyone who questions their predictions, calling skeptics "anti-science" and comparing them with Holocaust deniers.
And where has all this hostility got them?
Here are the results as we near the end of 2021:
- The world has is completely failing to meet the targets from the 2015 Paris agreement.
- The big COP26 summit in Glasgow last month was a bust.
- Prior to the pandemic, we continued to see carbon dioxide emissions reaching new world records each year.
- Oil has never been more popular.
- The International Energy Agency predicts coal power generation could hit an all-time high in 2022.
- The four major countries (China, the U.S., India and Russia) that produce over half of the global carbon dioxide emissions won't achieve any meaningful reductions in the foreseeable future.
- Europe and other parts of the world are facing a significant energy crisis.
- Saudi Arabia and Russia have grown more powerful as countries become more dependent on their fossil fuels.
Etc.
Thirty years of demonization and the increased politicization of science has been an utter failure. It's led to lots of virtue signalling and no fundamental change.
You would think the self-proclaimed followers of science would realize that when something doesn't work, it's foolhardy to keep at it.
You would think that.
They've spent more than 30 years trying to demonize and marginalize anyone who questions their predictions, calling skeptics "anti-science" and comparing them with Holocaust deniers.
And where has all this hostility got them?
Here are the results as we near the end of 2021:
- The world has is completely failing to meet the targets from the 2015 Paris agreement.
- The big COP26 summit in Glasgow last month was a bust.
- Prior to the pandemic, we continued to see carbon dioxide emissions reaching new world records each year.
- Oil has never been more popular.
- The International Energy Agency predicts coal power generation could hit an all-time high in 2022.
- The four major countries (China, the U.S., India and Russia) that produce over half of the global carbon dioxide emissions won't achieve any meaningful reductions in the foreseeable future.
- Europe and other parts of the world are facing a significant energy crisis.
- Saudi Arabia and Russia have grown more powerful as countries become more dependent on their fossil fuels.
Etc.
Thirty years of demonization and the increased politicization of science has been an utter failure. It's led to lots of virtue signalling and no fundamental change.
You would think the self-proclaimed followers of science would realize that when something doesn't work, it's foolhardy to keep at it.
You would think that.
If fundamental change means immediate or very near term
emission reduction then no political leaders or the climate
sheeple who voted them in would actually want it. The climate
movement is about putting nominally green politicians in positions
of power. Fundamental change is question of when not if it will
happen in the far future.
Into positions of power over others
however the charade can not continue.
continued failed predictions,, material scarcity and economics
As far as I can see the charade called climate movement will
continue into the near future. I just can't see how rising cost
of energy and material will bring it to the end. Not even perpetual
emission growth will wake climate sheeple up to the ineptitude of
their leaders. They can always continue kicking the can of zero emission
target down the road to the eternity.
Last edited:
IPCC projections are very accurate. Here's NASA on the accuracy.
Or are you going to try to insult NASA's integrity because you don't like this answer?
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right - NASA Science
A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.
climate.nasa.gov
The Himalayas have lost 40% of their ice already, and while they may have included an error in the 2007 report that doesn't negate either what is happening or the general, incredible accuracy of their reports.]Meanwhile, you couldn't find any evidence to back the most prominent prediction from the IPCC's 2007 report - a preposterous prediction that had no basis in reality, yet went unchallenged by the IPCC's devout followers for over two years.
Talk about faith-based belief.
The paper, which is published in Scientific Reports, made a reconstruction of the size and ice surfaces of 14,798 Himalayan glaciers during the Little Ice Age. The researchers calculate that the glaciers have lost around 40 percent of their area—shrinking from a peak of 28,000 km2 to around 19,600 km2 today.
During that period they have also lost between 390 km3 and 586 km3 of ice—the equivalent of all the ice contained today in the central European Alps, the Caucasus, and Scandinavia combined. The water released through that melting has raised sea levels across the world by between 0.92 mm and 1.38 mm, the team calculates.
Here's the study.
Are you saying you don't think Greenland is seeing signs of climate change?
Rain fell at Greenland's summit this year for the first time. It's going to happen more often, study says
New research suggests that the Arctic region will see more rain than snow as climate change advances.
www.cnn.com
For 40 years Exxon and the oil industry knew the damage their products were causing.
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation
Instead of doing something they spent billions to fool people like you, to buy politicians and stop anyone from doing something about climate change.
How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation
Activists say Democratic climate proposals won’t be able to pass until lawmakers put a stop to oil companies trying to rebrand themselves
www.theguardian.com
The majority will not suffer persistent inflation, on going blackouts and a lack of transportation
Ah, oil and gas speaks and declares that oil and gas is noble and true and not at all harmful.
"Already"?? According to your article, that 40% statistic covers a period of more than 400 years.
--
Let's review. I asked you to produce the scientific evidence that supported the prediction in the 2007 report - arguably the most prominent prediction in the entire thing, and one that went unchallenged by the IPCC's devout followers for over two years.
In fact, there was no empirical evidence to support that prediction.
"Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service said: 'There are simply no observations available to make these sorts of statements'."
U.N. climate chiefs apologize for glacier error - CNN.com
The U.N.'s leading panel on climate change has apologized for misleading data published in a 2007 report that warned Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
www.cnn.com
IPCC Finally Acknowledges Its “Himalayan Blunder”
BANGALORE, India--Amidst the doomsday scenario presented by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) there is one silver lining, at least the glaciers in the Himalayas are not disappearing for at least a couple of centuries.
Absolutely.
The real question is what makes political leaders today think they could possibly know what is best for "future generations."
The best example of this flawed thinking was the great horse manure crisis of the late 19th century, with its horrendously wrong predictions about the dire future that awaited in 50 years' time. As this article notes, "necessity is the mother of invention."
The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894
By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were drowning in horse manure. The London Times predicted in 1894 that in 50 years time, every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure.
www.historic-uk.com
The future is unknowable.
Even if it somehow turns out the UN climate bedwetters' predictions have some merit, there is no way to anticipate what innovations await in the future. Indeed, it's not even clear that a warming planet would be a bad thing (it hasn't been so far, despite some of the weather porn in the newscasts).
Yes, there are plenty of climate researchers who attract large government grants by predicting the apocalypse. But these doomsday scenarios are almost always wrong (think of the global panic created by Paul Ehrlich's 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb).
Inevitably, the panic was unnecessary because new technology and research led to further improvements.
Fossil fuels have created tremendous prosperity throughout the world. In fact, we wouldn't have vaccines to help many people avert the worst of COVID-19 if it weren't for fossil fuels.
I don't know what the future holds, and neither does anyone else. I'm all in favour of researching topics like greenhouse gas emissions but the politicians should focus on issues they can actually address.
That wasn't the 'most prominent prediction', you're trolling.
This science denier script item #5, claiming the science has to be perfect.
As the IPCC said:
"I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report. "
The fact that this is the only error in a 3,000 page report or in a report since proves their work is actually stellar.
One error in 13 years and thousands of pages?
Outstanding.
What this shows is that either you are trolling, you know your arguments are false, and likely you are acting on your religious like faith.
Clearly you aren't working off of science or facts.
