I wouldn't trust politicians either, I trust scientists whose work has been vetted by peer assessment and proven over the years to be accurate.
As NASA posted, and as you are too afraid to respond to, the IPCC projections have been spot on.
The global energy crisis - Green fairy tales collide with reality
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
As NASA posted, and as you are too afraid to respond to, the IPCC projections have been spot on.
you are mis-guided
do you honestly think wind and solar displaced all that coal fired electricity generation?
if so did you want to buy a bridge?
How many of them "vetted" the 2007 prediction about the Himalayan glaciers?
As for the IPCC's apocalyptic predictions about the Earth's temperature, I said six years ago the IPCC's prediction that it could increase by as much as 5.8C by the end of the century was total hogwash.
Six years later, I stand by what I said.
BTW, the four countries responsible for the majority of man-made emissions aren't going to achieve any meaningful reductions in the foreseeable future. It sure doesn't look like the IPCC has anyone particularly worried.
Maybe that's because the UN said if the global warming issue wasn't resolved by the year 2000, it would be "beyond human control."
If we're all supposed to agree that UN predictions should never be questioned, then there's no point about worrying about it now.
Last edited:
Hilarious, a few pages ago you were ranting about climate change activists focusing entirely on RCP 8.5 and the extremes of projections.How many of them "vetted" the 2007 prediction about the Himalayan glaciers?
As for the IPCC's apocalyptic predictions about the Earth's temperature, I said six years ago the IPCC's prediction that it could increase by as much as 5.8C by the end of the century was total hogwash.
Six years later, I stand by what I said.
BTW, the four countries responsible for the majority of man-made emissions aren't going to achieve any meaningful reductions in the foreseeable future. It sure doesn't look like the IPCC has anyone particularly worried.
Maybe that's because the UN said if the global warming issue wasn't resolved by the year 2000, it would be "beyond human control."
If we're all supposed to agree that UN predictions should never be questioned, then there's no point about worrying about it now.
I replied that no, its the science deniers who try that tactic, not scientists.
And here you are ranting about the extremes of the error bars of RCP 8.5 and projections from 20 years ago.
You are nothing but consistent in your religious views that its not oil and gas that's lying here but instead every legit scientist on the planet that studies the climate.
It's no wonder Franky never questions the UN's ability to predict the future. He apparently believes climate scientists have mastered the art of time travel.
For the record, the IPCC statements about the possible 5.8C temperature increase were made in 2001 following the release of the IPCC's third assessment report:
www.theguardian.com
The RCP8.5 scenario that was spun by progressives as a "business as usual" scenario was in the IPCC's fifth assessment report in 2013:
www.carbonbrief.org
(Do I really need to repeat - yet again - that Frankfooter doesn't know what he's talking about.)
For the record, the IPCC statements about the possible 5.8C temperature increase were made in 2001 following the release of the IPCC's third assessment report:
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.
www.theguardian.com
The RCP8.5 scenario that was spun by progressives as a "business as usual" scenario was in the IPCC's fifth assessment report in 2013:
Explainer: The high-emissions ‘RCP8.5’ global warming scenario
A sizable portion of recent studies on future climate impacts have focused on a future warming scenario called “RCP8.5”. This high-emissions scenario is frequently referred to as “business as usual”, suggesting that is a likely outcome if society does not make concerted efforts to cut greenhouse...
www.carbonbrief.org
(Do I really need to repeat - yet again - that Frankfooter doesn't know what he's talking about.)
I just realized I better bookmark this quote for the inevitable moment when the bullshitter tries to deny what he posted.
You're reading comprehension might be worse than your scientific comprehension.It's no wonder Franky never questions the UN's ability to predict the future. He apparently believes climate scientists have mastered the art of time travel.
For the record, the IPCC statements about the possible 5.8C temperature increase were made in 2001 following the release of the IPCC's third assessment report:
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.
The RCP8.5 scenario that was spun by progressives as a "business as usual" scenario was in the IPCC's fifth assessment report in 2013:
Explainer: The high-emissions ‘RCP8.5’ global warming scenario
A sizable portion of recent studies on future climate impacts have focused on a future warming scenario called “RCP8.5”. This high-emissions scenario is frequently referred to as “business as usual”, suggesting that is a likely outcome if society does not make concerted efforts to cut greenhouse...
(Do I really need to repeat - yet again - that Frankfooter doesn't know what he's talking about.)
This is what I said:
Hilarious, a few pages ago you were ranting about climate change activists focusing entirely on RCP 8.5 and the extremes of projections.
You were talking about RCP 8.5 before randomly moving on to the 2001 projection, which is why both were referenced.
Once again, you failed.
This is yet another science denier script item #5 attack, trying to argue that the science has to be perfect.
All while your only projection was a total failure, you couldn't even predict the temperature of one single year.
You claimed the world wouldn't hit 0.83ºC in 2015, a temperature that the world passed and won't return to for centuries.
According to your own standards, since your science predictions are a total failure, with 0% accuracy, we should not listen to what you have to say.
I see. So the explanation for post 225 is that it was a garbled mess by someone who can't write at an adult level. Fair enough.
Let's consider the accusation that I was saying the "science has to be perfect."
In the case of the 2007 prediction about the Himalayan glaciers, the IPCC has admitted it came from "grey literature" and there were absolutely no facts whatsoever to support that prediction. Yet the IPCC worshippers believed it for more than two years and the chair of the IPCC used that shocking prediction to fundraise for his own institute.
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.
It was a completely baseless prediction that was a hallmark of the report Franky says was carefully vetted by scientists. It contributed to panicked headlines and news reports on global scale.
Expecting such predictions to have at least some basis in reality is hardly "trying to argue that the science has to be perfect."
One error in 3,000 pages.
That's not good enough from the guy who though 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC and has a record of 0% accuracy on his own predictions.
You use the same script that flat earthers and anti vaxxers use.
#5 is claiming the science has to be perfect.
The proof is that you have stated here that there is no evidence that you would accept to prove the science is correct.
That makes you a science denier like the flat earther crowd.
Question asked here:
In your direct reply to that question you refused to say what, if any, evidence could convince you.
Question asked again here:
Same answer here, where you can't find any evidence that will convince you so instead try to change the topic to the one error you've found in a 3,000 page report.
Finally, in this post you say it would take accurate predictions from the IPCC.
I reply with NASA's post on the accuracy of IPCC predictions, which is exactly the evidence you say you are looking for.
Instead of admitting this is the proof you asked for you try to say you were asking for proof of the one Himalayan error deniers found in a 3,000 page report.
Which shows that either you are trolling or your beliefs are faith based and you will never accept any evidence, even if you ask for it and its given to you.
You are following the same science denier script used by flat earthers, anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers.
My claims are proven here and fully documented.
This is your movement:
The Antiscience Movement Is Escalating, Going Global and Killing Thousands
Rejection of mainstream science and medicine has become a key feature of the political right in the U.S. and increasingly around the world
Actually, I have highlighted a number of examples, such as the UN prediction from 1989 that global warming would have to be reversed by the year 2000 or it would be "beyond human control."
If accurate, that means it's now completely pointless to even worry about it.
But the bigger point is the one I made in my reply to oil&gas, where I used the examples of the great horse manure crisis from the late 19th century and Paul Ehrlich's 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, to demonstrate why it is impossible to predict the future.
The reality is we can't predict or even imagine what new innovations could emerge that could be complete game-changers. As was previously noted, Ehrlich's predictions didn't account for innovations in agriculture that led to massive increases in food production.
His predictions and speculation were based on what he knew at the time.
And that's the problem. People who try to predict the future ultimately end up projecting the present onto the future. For example, imagining coal production will be a key source of energy to the end of the century.
The future is unknowable.
So what proof could the climate researchers provide to confirm they know how the future will unfold? Given that there's no way to know that today, they would have to be able to demonstrate they have mastered the art of time travel.
Last edited:
Thank you for finally admitting that there is no evidence or fact that could convince you to change your mind.
You are a science denier and acting according to a religious like faith that cannot be changed by facts, evidence or science.
Just like the flat earthers.
This is absolutely insane.
What possible proof could anyone produce that would allow us to conclude what life will be like on planet Earth in the year 2050? We can't even say with any certainty what the world will look like 10 years from now as artificial intelligence and robotics transform our society.
Climate researchers can create computer models and speculate about the future. But computer model projections are not established facts (something everyone should have learned during the pandemic).
The only way to prove that predictions about life in the year 2050 were correct is to wait until the year 2050 to compare the observed facts with the predictions.
The people worrying about the great horse manure crisis in the late 19th century were right about the situation at the time. They were completely wrong about what things would be like 50 years later. That's because they had never heard of Henry Ford.
Even if it could miraculously be shown that the IPCC has been right so far (extremely doubtful), it wouldn't be "proof" that they're right about the future.
As I said, the future is unknowable.
(As an aside, I've decided to bookmark this post, so that it can be quickly retrieved when Frankfooter starts lying about the actual content. His blatant dishonesty and the abject stupidity of his posts are things that can be predicted with a great deal of confidence. You might say that when it comes to Frankfooter's bullshit, the science is "settled"
).
Last edited:
Yes, it is absolutely insane that you deny that science can work, that scientists can create computer models that show ranges of outcome based on CO2 and other inputs and show those possibilities with error bars showing how confident they are in their results. Even when shown the numbers that show that they can and have done this successfully you just deny it.This is absolutely insane.
What possible proof could anyone produce that would allow us to conclude what life will be like on planet Earth in the year 2050? We can't even say with any certainty what the world will look like 10 years from now as artificial intelligence and robotics transform our society.
Climate researchers can create computer models and speculate about the future. But computer model projections are not established facts (something everyone should have learned during the pandemic).
The only way to prove that predictions about life in the year 2050 were correct is to wait until the year 2050 to compare the observed facts with the predictions.
The people worrying about the great horse manure crisis in the late 19th century were right about the situation at the time. They were completely wrong about what things would be like 50 years later. That's because they had never heard of Henry Ford.
Even if it could miraculously be shown that the IPCC has been right so far (extremely doubtful), it wouldn't be "proof" that they're right about the future.
As I said, the future is unknowable.
(As an aside, I've decided to bookmark this post, so that it can be quickly retrieved when Frankfooter starts lying about the actual content. His blatant dishonesty and the abject stupidity of his posts are things that can be predicted with a great deal of confidence. You might say that when it comes to Frankfooter's bullshit, the science is "settled"
Its insane that someone would admit claim to understand the science then turn around and say no evidence could ever convince them they are wrong.
How are you different from a flat earther?
"Computer models that show ranges of outcomes"?
That does not meet the definition of "proof"!!
Frankfooter says I won't accept any "proof" that climate scientists can accurately predict the future. But for obvious reasons, he can't come up with anything that qualifies as "proof."
No one can provide "proof" unless that person has travelled to the future.
Too funny.
(Not to mention those computer model projections have astronomical "ranges of outcomes," with maximum projections that are four times greater than the minimum projections: https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...climate-change-global-temperature-projections.)
Last edited:
I see. So the explanation for post 225 is that it was a garbled mess by someone who can't write at an adult level. Fair enough.
Let's consider the accusation that I was saying the "science has to be perfect."
In the case of the 2007 prediction about the Himalayan glaciers, the IPCC has admitted it came from "grey literature" and there were absolutely no facts whatsoever to support that prediction. Yet the IPCC worshippers believed it for more than two years and the chair of the IPCC used that shocking prediction to fundraise for his own institute.
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.blogs.scientificamerican.com
It was a completely baseless prediction that was a hallmark of the report Franky says was carefully vetted by scientists. It contributed to panicked headlines and news reports on global scale.
Expecting such predictions to have at least some basis in reality is hardly "trying to argue that the science has to be perfect."
"the science has to be perfect."
If your theory does not agree with the experimental observations, the theory is wrong
What the IPCC is doing is not scientific research .
they have a mandate to prove AGW >>> Billions of taxpayer dollars later they claim their theory is true.... except for the 50 years of missed projections
If your theory does not agree with the experimental observations, the theory is wrong
Science denier script item #2.
What a person who uses and understands science would do is check the theories, the evidence and the past record for these computer models.
Not claim its impossible to know the future so therefore they can't even predict whether the sun will rise tomorrow.
Check the record of past projections, as reported by NASA, whom I'm sure you'll attack next.
So far the IPCC projections have been quite accurate.
Whereas moviefan's sole projection for 2015 was a dismal failure.
