The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

[Reflexzero]

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

Did you happen to go to any of the sources?

I picked one at random (the natural resources prediction). The source doesn't match what the article claims.

Since this appears to be a consistent pattern (like the dishonest magazine covers that you used to post), do you suppose it was done through ignorance, dishonesty, or laziness?

[Guest]

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

Did you happen to go to any of the sources?

I picked one at random (the natural resources prediction). The source pretty much says the exact opposite.

Since this appears to be a consistent pattern (like the dishonest magazine covers that you used to post), do you suppose it was done through ignorance, dishonesty, or laziness?

LOL... You call me lazy, when YOU clearly didn't read the article linked.
Because it's an article that DEBUNKS various claims that natural resources are running out.

In other words, the claims of natural resources running out are found within the article.
Just WOW... Perfect example of the intellectual skills of Leftists. You read the TITLE of the Article, and don't think or study beyond that.

And further, you LIE about me and the magazine covers.... Because only ONE of the Magazine covers I posted was FAKE (an honest mistake by the compiler), not more than one as you state!

[_Doctor Steuss]

LOL... You call me lazy, when YOU clearly didn't read the article linked.
Because it's an article that DEBUNKS various claims that natural resources are running out.

In other words, the claims of natural resources running out are found within the article.

Just WOW... Perfect example of the intellectual skills of Leftists.

I know, right. I mean, the article includes the claimed prediction as follows:

In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.

Notice already that claimed prediction in the article doesn't match Breitbart's representation. But, let's not let this pop your bubble.

Here's the report by the CofR. By all means, show me where it makes the specific prediction Brietbart claims it does.

https://archive.org/details/limitstogrowthr00mead

And further, you LIE about me and the magazine covers.... Because only ONE of the Magazine covers I posted was FAKE (an honest mistake by the compiler), not more than one as you state!

Pro Tip: The numbers 1 and 2 aren't the same thing.

[Guest]

1. "Massive shortages" of Natural Resources is shorthand implication of "use up all natural resources".
The implication is the same. Further, even if it is an honest shorthand mistake, we ALL know what it means.
It still doesn't debunk everything else... Man

2. You said "like the dishonest magazine covers that you used to post".
There was ONLY ONE fake magazine cover (which was clearly an honest mistake of the person who compiled the images, some Leftist likely made it and put it on the internet so as to attack people). Thus, you're being just as inaccurate as you're accusing Brietbart of being with their shorthand statement, but the difference is, you're INTENTIONALLY lying in order to falsely degrade me, they may have just made a simple writing mistake, which still relays the intended point, even if not written perfectly accurate.

LOL

[_Doctor Steuss]

I must have overlooked in your above post the portion of the report that matches Brietbart's specific claim. I'm sure it was just an oversight on my part.

[_Doctor Steuss]

2. You said "like the dishonest magazine covers that you used to post".
There was ONLY ONE fake magazine cover

I guess if we wanted to get technical, there weren’t any fake magazine covers. They were all essentially real covers. They were just fake in what they claimed to be representing by your compiler, who like totally just made an honest mistake, and was totally a victim of a leftist that tried to make them look stupid.

But hey, let’s go ahead and take a look at the covers, of which, ONLY ONE was problematic.

From our Global Cooling category, we have:
December 1973, “The Big Freeze.” This one is one of the best of the bunch, because the cover story isn’t even about weather. It’s about the 1973 oil crisis. LOL!!!!!!!

January 1977, “The Big Freeze.” This article is specifically about the winter of 1977. That’s it. But, since I’m sure you’ll think I’m just being a lying lazy leftist, here’s the cover article. Link to article.. I’m sure you’ll notice the complete lack of the word “global” anywhere. What do they attribute the “Big Freeze” to? Changing weather patterns. In fact, not only does it not refer to a global cooling, it actually makes reference to how Anchorage Alaska saw WARMING that year.

April 1977 I fortunately won’t have to address, since this is the one that some evil leftist, like totally must have done.

December 1979, “The Cooling of America.” Once again, another article that wasn’t about weather, or global cooling. It was about the oil shock of 1979.

Now, I imagine most people don’t think that “ONLY ONE” and “ALL” are the same thing, but since you think “shortage” is the same as something being used all up, maybe when you say only one, you really do mean all.

No doubt some leftist created the dictionary to try to embarrass an honest conservative though.

[_ldsfaqs]

"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?

1. In the Court Documents Mann claims along with his colleagues to have been "Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize".
This is 100% unequivocally FALSE... A LIE.
The IPCC and Al Gore was awarded it, PERIOD.
Mann directly stated to a Court of Law that HE was awarded the prize. That is a crime let alone unethical to lie to a court.

2. Even the article you link states "Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner."

3. Heller was stating that the Director of the Nobel specifically states that THEY did not award any "personal" certificates.
Now, as you found, apparently the IPCC did create their "own" certificates and gave them out.
So, upon your further investigation, the certificate itself isn't "entirely" fraudulent, but the Nobel Institute certainly looks at it in a non-approving way.
They especially look at the claim in the Court Documents that way, by making clear HE did not receive the prize (Only Al Gore can make that claim.
), AND he received NO CERTIFICATE from them.

So, in conclusion, it was a mistake to fault Mann for the Certificate, since it came from the IPCC, even though it was a bit incestuous just like Al Gore getting the Prize in the first place. Nevertheless, it was still true that he didn't get the certificate from Nobel, which is all really Tony Heller said by quoting the Nobel Director. I myself read more into that than I should have by calling it a "fraud", when it was more of a "misrepresentation" of himself by the IPCC including the actual Nobel Image on his certificate from the IPCC. Even still, ALL I said in my OP is that it wasn't something that came from Nobel, which is STILL true. So, neither I nor Heller told a falsehood, we simply didn't have the further necessary facts to explain the origin of the certificate itself, we just addressed the statement of the Nobel Director.

But, Mann clearly shows his unethical "hutspa" to make the claim he DID get awarded the prize on court documents. That's clear and direct.

Anyway... The certificate still doesn't change the climate data fraud he engages in, and others simply follow, by intentionally removing the Medieval Warm Period, a well documented warm period of history for a 100 whatever years from Ice Cores, Tree Rings, etc.

That is also massively unethical, no matter how you cut it, especially when we have testimony from some of them being told by certain climate scientists (i.e. Mann) that "they need to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". In other words, it wasn't science, it was Leftist corrupt AGW agenda.

Don't forget, the Medieval Warm Period was a much warmer period then now when man was very much around...
So, they had to get rid of it in order to fool gullible people like you into believing "now" is "hotter than ever" and if we don't do something the worlds ending.

[_Res Ipsa]

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...

FAQs, you haven't posted any science. You cut and pasted a bunch of, largely, newspaper clippings from Tony Heller. You haven't seen any "true" predictions because you haven't looked for any. None of us can help you with your willful blindness.

[Guest]

faqs, who wrote the text in the court doc?

[_canpakes]

Sorry, Shades - duplicate post.