The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

You don't even have to read the book. A researcher fellow in Australia has been tracing the predictions with results. https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/__da ... r_2014.pdf

I doubt that the predicted overshoot and collapse will happen, at least at the time predicted by the model. But, as the man said, all models are wrong. Some models are useful. But would be totally inaccurate to say that we should have run out of resources by now according to the model. The model also doesn't predict that we run out of resources during the time of the model run. A resource shortage is absolutely not the same thing as using them all up.

[_canpakes]

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?

This has always been faq’s approach. He routinely posts crap that is exaggerated, misrepresented or outright untrue. I’m not sure if this is out of laziness or outright dishonesty, but it’s likely a combination of both.

[_ldsfaqs]

I already looked into every single one of them by reading them myself, after your's or whoever's charge who posted the original attack, in order to make sure they were valid.

They were ALL valid accept the one. All the valid ones referred to some "extreme cold" issue.
You can keep misrepresenting if you want.

Further, the point of posting those Magazine covers is they were addressing Cooling of the earth.
The 70's were FULL of Articles, News, TV Shows etc. on Global Cooling.
In fact, over 60% of all the known scientific articles related to cooling or warming were for Global Cooling. Only less than 40% were related to Global Warming.

There was a study done which was clearly an AGW agenda which claimed only some 30% of studies were on Global Cooling, but they conveniently "ommited" a LOT of sources to make that claim. Another study was done which found there was over 60% of peer-reviewed climate studies that were Global Cooling, not 30%.
Thus further, we can see how Leftists lie for their agenda, not truth, even not scientific truth.

Here's the Study: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/ ... ot-a-myth/

[_Res Ipsa]

"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.

FAQS, you are completely delusional. I know the quote that you are referring to. Mann didn't say it. And you've misquoted what the actual person said in a way that is absolutely misleading. Over and over again you post flat out lies because you are too lazy to check your dishonest sources. So, produce the testimony that Mann said "they need to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period" or be, once again, a proven liar.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Wow. It takes a lot to shock me nowadays.

I'm used to willful ignorance, and misrepresentations. But this level of in-your-face boldfaced dishonesty is something else.

I'm gobsmacked.

[_ldsfaqs]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/ ... ot-a-myth/

This page overviews the original review of papers that tried to claim the "70's Cooling Consensus was a Myth", and then it presents an overview of the review of papers that debunks that review.
It further shows that AGW "scientists" and proponents are unethical, by clearly omitting key sources and studies that were in fact accessible (as they were to this new reviewer) in order to make their claims.

This is not "science" and valid scholarship that is occurring by AGW proponents it's propaganda.

Conclusion of the review of all available/accessible scientific papers related to the climate.

86 Papers supported Global Cooling
58 Papers were neutral
46 Papers supported Global Warming
30 of the above studies supported a possible coming Ice Age.

Also, at the bottom of the page, there is a link listing all papers and scientific journals etc. reviewed.

[_ldsfaqs]

Wow. It takes a lot to shock me nowadays.

I'm used to willful ignorance, and misrepresentations. But this level of in-your-face boldfaced dishonesty is something else.

I'm gobsmacked.

Just like you folks are to me...
I spend hours and hours comparing and contrasting. I'm on the side of the truth.

[_Res Ipsa]

I already looked into every single one of them by reading them myself, after your's or whoever's charge who posted the original attack, in order to make sure they were valid.

They were ALL valid accept the one. All the valid ones referred to some "extreme cold" issue.
You can keep misrepresenting if you want.

Further, the point of posting those Magazine covers is they were addressing Cooling of the earth.
The 70's were FULL of Articles, News, TV Shows etc. on Global Cooling.
In fact, over 60% of all the known scientific articles related to cooling or warming were for Global Cooling. Only less than 40% were related to Global Warming.

There was a study done which was clearly an AGW agenda which claimed only some 30% of studies were on Global Cooling, but they conveniently "ommited" a LOT of sources to make that claim. Another study was done which found there was over 60% of peer-reviewed climate studies that were Global Cooling, not 30%.
Thus further, we can see how Leftists lie for their agenda, not truth, even not scientific truth.

Here's the Study: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/ ... ot-a-myth/

Uh, not a study. The original study set out the search parameters at the beginning and then totaled the number of warming and cooling predictions. Then, the author of the WUWT blog post added someone's collection of denier papers. That's a different process entirely. What the blog author should have done was broadened the search criteria and reported the resulting totals for both warming and cooling. To go outside the defined search criteria by looking only for the warming papers is, as we say, a massive cherry pick.

The thing about the science papers that underlie the media articles -- most of them are correct based on the assumptions contained in the papers. If you projected the trends of the past few years, you got cooling. If you increased aerosol pollution, you'd get cooling. The Milankovitch cycles would lead to cooling. And, under certain assumptions, the cooling could be significant. The problem you have is that you deliberately close your eyes to the context. We didn't get dramatic cooling from aerosols because we did things like adopt air pollution standards under the clean air act. We didn't end up with the Ozone hole causing a huge problem because we got together with other countries and enacted the Montreal Protocol. And we didn't under up with cooling from the Milankovitch cycles because it was more than offset by the effect of increasing CO2. That's why the President asked the National Academy of Sciences to figure things out, and the IPCC was formed.

[_Res Ipsa]

Wow. It takes a lot to shock me nowadays.

I'm used to willful ignorance, and misrepresentations. But this level of in-your-face boldfaced dishonesty is something else.

I'm gobsmacked.

Just like you folks are to me...
I spend hours and hours comparing and contrasting. I'm on the side of the truth.

We can all tell that you are flat out lying now. Your comparing and contrasting is limited to comparing and contrasting what you find on different denier blogs, which you then regurgitate. It's apparent that you've never tried to look at the science.

[_Maksutov]

The AGW Agenda. How cool. Kind of makes you wonder about the Quantum Gravity Agenda and the Doppler Shift Agenda...we already know not to trust the Carbon Dating Agenda and the Mitochondrial DNA Agenda.