Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Javier
#1
From HERE

Nick,

Those predictions, whether new or not, have been and still are being widely circulated through the mass media to scare people silly about climate change, so the point is not that some predictions are bound to be incorrect. The entire alarmist building is raised on false premises.

1 & 2. Just read it
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/..._I_spm.pdf

They are very specific about what to expect by 2025. Of the 35 years, 28 have already passed. The expected increase and rate of increase has not happened by a big margin.

3. They talk about the consequences of milder winters because milder winters were expected. They did not talk about the consequences of harsher winters due to global warming until harsher winters appeared.

4. NH Snow cover unchanged. Not my problem if you can’t find the data.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NHemis...ce1972.gif

5. The first prediction of water stress due to lack of precipitations was shown unsustained, as eventually all drastic predictions will.

6. You don’t read the press, do you? We are constantly bombarded by claims from alarmist scientists that climate change is making weather extremes oh so much worse. Do I have to look for the link where Michael Mann was saying how Harvey was made worse by climate change? Failure to predict shows they are bogus.

7. Can you prove that wildfires have increased? I can prove that in the EU wildfires have decreased. This is consistent with the article that clearly states that overall fires are decreasing. Not precisely the promised scenario.

8. Munk’s enigma was published in 2002. The predictions and explanations that go the opposite way were published later. Mitrovica’s explanation of Munk’s enigma is controversial. William Peltier, who was Mitrovica’s thesis advisor, says it is wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ener...evel-rise/

9 & 10. Well known Arctic sea ice predictions and well laughed at.

11. The glacier prediction showed what the IPCC considered acceptable sources, and how much they took into consideration their own reviewer warnings. The whole IPCC process is contaminated by bias from its very set up as a panel dedicated to find an anthropogenic effect on climate change.

B1. Oh yes, Sherwood Idso did predict the greening
Industrial age leading to the greening of the Earth?
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3...022a0.html

But as he was immediately labeled as a skeptic, or worse, I don’t think you can count that on the side of the warmists, or even consensus builders.
Sherwood Idso label at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc..._consensus

So that one is a score for the skeptics.

B2. Deforestation was believed to be a more important factor driving a global loss of forests. Just the opposite has been found.

B3. The missing sink was all the fuss in the early 90’s carbon budget accounting. They weren’t able to predict the observed increase in the sinks and they could not understand it for quite some time after observing it. Clearly it was not expected.

B4. The Pause was never predicted. The possibility that the warming rate could actually go down while CO2 was increasing was not considered in the literature before it happened. Most of the literature on the pause is from 2013 onward. Finding an earlier paper disproves nothing. The issue was ignored until it became impossible, and attempts are still being made at erasing the pause from the records.

Since you are not an alarmist. Why would you defend them when they are clearly and demonstrably so wrong?
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” Richard P. Feynman.


“The further society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
George Orwell

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)