The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

[_mikwut]

Just read the peer reviewed paper Gunnar.

The Connolly's are who did all the number research and the paper is actually fairly easy to understand.

Did you read it?

mikwut

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Here is a link to the peer reviewed paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... th_century

mikwut

There are 50 pages of pretty thick data analysis. What part are you suggesting we focus on in order to ascertain your point?

- Doc

[_Analytics]

"Fake Nobel Prize"? What a weak argument. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was given to Al Gore and the IPCC. Dr. Michael Mann was one of the key contributors to the work of the IPCC. While it's true that his lawyers said in a court document "Dr. Mann and his collogues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize," and while it's true that it would be more accurate for them to say, "Dr. Mann and his collogues contributed to the IPCC winning the Nobel Peace Prize," this is simply a matter of being precise in how his contribution is described. It isn't a lie. Further, it was spoken by his attorneys, not by Mann himself.

Your video claims that Dr. Mann (somehow) took the diploma awarded to the IPCC and "made his own text under this authentic looking diploma." That is a lie. What actually happened is that "the IPCC presented personalized certificates 'for contributing to the award to the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC' to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports." Dr. Mann received this certificate from the IPCC--the award winner. He didn't make it. The following link has an image of the letter signed by the director of the IPCC explaining this.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/ ... r-the-bus/

If your video was a trustworthy source, why would it lie about the origin of the certificate that the IPCC presented to Dr. Mann?

[_subgenius]

Oh, it's worse than that...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nistration

You just thought Drain the Swamp meant getting the corruption out of government. It actually means getting rid of the scientists so industry can run the government.

what business do scientists have running government? and when did corruption get out if science?

[_Res Ipsa]

Just read the peer reviewed paper Gunnar.

The Connolly's are who did all the number research and the paper is actually fairly easy to understand.

Did you read it?

mikwut

I’ve now read it. It’s more readable than the product of most armchair climate experts, but the paper itself is awful.

The paper seeks to answer a straightforward question: how much of the observed warming is due to changes in the sun? And, given that we have satellite data that have tracked Total Solar Irradiation over time, that shouldn’t be too complicated.

So what does this team comprised of a family from Ireland, with neither education or experience in climate science, and an aerospace engineer/astrophysicist with a track record of terrible papers that claim the entire cause of warming is the sun, do? They talk about the satellite data, note that are slight difference in trends (none of which fit with the warming trend), throw it away, and take us on a wild goose chase. They replace the set of weather stations used by climate scientists (GHCN)with their own home brew brew of subset of weather stations. How home brew is it? Well, they throw out around 75% of the GHCN weather stations, analyze only four countries in the northern hemisphere, and notice that a graph of their data looks different than everyone else’s graphs.

Then, instead of using the actual data for TSI, they use estimates based on proxies. They choose one done by another scientist with a track record of goofy papers and use his.

This is followed by a game of “hey, this curve looks like that curve.” Then they combine their home brew temperature index with their selected proxy estimate of TSI changes, and they reach this stunning conclusion: the addition of all this CO2 to the atmosphere actually lowered the temperature. Never mind radiative physics. Never mind that you can’t account for the ice age cycles without the greenhouse effect. Never mind the water vapor feedback. The effect of changes in the sun accounts for more than all of the change, so there’s no room left for greenhouse gases.

But don’t worry, they’ve published papers that explain that, too. Well, published in an online, “open peer review” journal. That the Connolly family created.

But why go through all the rigamarole? Why not just use the satellite data? Here’s a hint: we’ve been setting temperature records when the sun is the “coolest” it’s been for 50 years.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -cold-sun/

So, mikwut, I ask you again: what about this convoluted mess did you find “promising?”

[_canpakes]

Oh, it's worse than that...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nistration

You just thought Drain the Swamp meant getting the corruption out of government. It actually means getting rid of the scientists so industry can run the government.

what business do scientists have running government? and when did corruption get out if science?

If only RI’s statement had implied either. : )

Good example of anti-vaxxer thinking, though. Are you one of those, too?

[_DarkHelmet]

Oh, it's worse than that...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nistration

You just thought Drain the Swamp meant getting the corruption out of government. It actually means getting rid of the scientists so industry can run the government.

what business do scientists have running government? and when did corruption get out if science?

"The government" employs millions of American citizens. It may surprise you, but many government jobs are in scientific fields and are best performed by people who have a science background.

[_honorentheos]

It certainly was an odd paper. The second half of the paper where they start with the claim that the urban heat island effect is causing a bias in the weather station data was interesting as a claim that turned out to be bizarre in study execution.

To focus on that point, they begin with the phenomena of urban areas have higher average temperatures than nearby rural areas largely due many factors from the lack of vegetative cover, heat capture in concrete and black asphalt, etc. The urban heat island effect was assumed by the authors to be influencing weather station data used in the modeling causing an "urbanization bias" that they proposed to offset by restricting a data set to rural areas and comparing the results with other prediction models. It's a valid scientific question that deserved to be investigated. The issue is with how they went about it.

[_ldsfaqs]

41 Failed Predictions of the last 50+ years...

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
1980: Peak Oil In 2000
1996: Peak Oil in 2020
2002: Peak Oil in 2010
2006: Super Hurricanes!
2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
1970s: Killer Bees!
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2 ... edictions/

[_ldsfaqs]

Since you’re just back to filling up the forum with repeats of your previous threads, I’ll just park this response to from Doc the last time you posted this bogus stuff:

1. Please tell me how a list of Failed Prophecy's by Climate "Scientists" and Activists are somehow "bogus"?
Seriously, I would like to know.
I mean, they make a prediction, and it doesn't come true... Please tell me what part of your brain thinks that's "bogus"?

2. Please tell me how you posting a list of all kinds of religions making failed prophecy's has ANYTHING to do with debunking my post?
Since you are clearly saying "believing in religion is stupid due to all their false prophecy's" are you actually saying believing in the "Climate Change" religion is ALSO foolhardy due to all their many false prophecy's?
LOL You don't even think about what you're doing.

3. As I said previously, I only believe in "one" religion. So, how do you think you're "debunking" me in ANY manner by posting all kinds of false prophecy's from religions I don't believe in, believe are false? Obviously, I also think those are false religions, for many reasons including their false prophecy's, so again, how's that somehow against "me" let alone against my post?

4. IF your climate change religion was ACTUALLY based in "SCIENCE"... It wouldn't have predictions that don't come true.
Of course, with normal sincere human error, some mistakes are always possible, but your false predictions are not normal human error, they are WAY beyond that.
First due to the shear numbers, in the 1,000's of false claims (what I've posted is simply samples), but second due to NONE of them coming true, but not only that, NOT EVEN CLOSE to having come true.

I want answers to these questions...