Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
January and February of this year have been the warmest ever recorded. That does look like a warmer winter, now doesn't it. Dry summers? Oregon and Washington just had a summer where the fires were so intense that they did not try to save the forests, instead they were trying to save the small towns. Damned near lost three of them in my home area.And another whiff. Westwall gives us 107 examples of ...
1. Predictions that came true
2. Predictions that weren't actually made, having been ripped screaming out of context.
3. Predictions made by people who weren't climate scientists
4. Predictions made by a single scientist that didn't represent any sort of consensus.
So, we've still got deniers unable to show even a single case of a consensus climate science prediction being wrong.
What will it take for you deniers to stop deflecting and admit your "scientists have been wrong" nonsense is merely a dishonest mantra that the denier religion orders its acolytes to chant?
Really? Which one of those predictions came true?
<Quoting botched Salon interview>
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress
And Bear whiffs again, posting the same old flawed Hansen interview. The interviewer there admitted that he screwed it up big time and misrepresented what Hansen said.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf
---
Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and reread the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.
---
Hansen's flooding prediction was not for "20 years from the time of the interview". It was for "40 years after a doubling of the CO2 concentration". Which was 350ppm at the time, so the clock on the 40 years starts ticking whenever 700 ppm is reached, which will be a while.
It's been known for 5 years now, that the Salon interview was botched. Deniers ... don't care. Poor Bear had no hope of knowing he was parroting a lie, because his cult leaders didn't want him to know that. Point is, poor Bear whiffed again in his quest to find some sort of failed prediction.
Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny. Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...
Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny. Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...
<Quoting botched Salon interview>
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress
And Bear whiffs again, posting the same old flawed Hansen interview. The interviewer there admitted that he screwed it up big time and misrepresented what Hansen said.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf
---
Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and reread the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.
---
Hansen's flooding prediction was not for "20 years from the time of the interview". It was for "40 years after a doubling of the CO2 concentration". Which was 350ppm at the time, so the clock on the 40 years starts ticking whenever 700 ppm is reached, which will be a while.
It's been known for 5 years now, that the Salon interview was botched. Deniers ... don't care. Poor Bear had no hope of knowing he was parroting a lie, because his cult leaders didn't want him to know that. Point is, poor Bear whiffed again in his quest to find some sort of failed prediction.
<Quoting botched Salon interview>
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress
And Bear whiffs again, posting the same old flawed Hansen interview. The interviewer there admitted that he screwed it up big time and misrepresented what Hansen said.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf
---
Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and reread the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.
---
Hansen's flooding prediction was not for "20 years from the time of the interview". It was for "40 years after a doubling of the CO2 concentration". Which was 350ppm at the time, so the clock on the 40 years starts ticking whenever 700 ppm is reached, which will be a while.
It's been known for 5 years now, that the Salon interview was botched. Deniers ... don't care. Poor Bear had no hope of knowing he was parroting a lie, because his cult leaders didn't want him to know that. Point is, poor Bear whiffed again in his quest to find some sort of failed prediction.
January and February of this year have been the warmest ever recorded. That does look like a warmer winter, now doesn't it. Dry summers? Oregon and Washington just had a summer where the fires were so intense that they did not try to save the forests, instead they were trying to save the small towns. Damned near lost three of them in my home area.And another whiff. Westwall gives us 107 examples of ...
1. Predictions that came true
2. Predictions that weren't actually made, having been ripped screaming out of context.
3. Predictions made by people who weren't climate scientists
4. Predictions made by a single scientist that didn't represent any sort of consensus.
So, we've still got deniers unable to show even a single case of a consensus climate science prediction being wrong.
What will it take for you deniers to stop deflecting and admit your "scientists have been wrong" nonsense is merely a dishonest mantra that the denier religion orders its acolytes to chant?
Really? Which one of those predictions came true?
Mr. Westwall, you are one silly ass. Even the equations we use in physics are nothing but models of the real world, and many come with warnings concerning the parameters for which they can be used with any accuracy. And, when you are using models created by past observations, and the world is in the process of change, then those models are no longer that accurate, because the parameters are changing.
Now you have in the past referred to the Maunder Minimum for predicting a cooling. What was that but a prediction based on a model? And a very poor one as we can see from the last two years and the present year.
Untrue. Equations tell you EXACTLY what is going to occur if you do A+B the product is ALWAYS C. That's what it means to be an exact science. Something that climatology is not.
What science do you believe is an "exact" one?
Ha try this one bitch I have the book right in front of me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, page 30
"I would not bet that the Mississippi Gulf Coast will get hit by a super hurricane in any particular year, but I certainly plan on it being hit again sometime over the next ten years:I wouldn't be surprised if it where hit by more then one" Joesph Romm
the book is copyrighted 2007.........................................
Really? Which one of those predictions came true?
"Milder and wetter winters", for example.
Ha try this one bitch I have the book right in front of me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, page 30
"I would not bet that the Mississippi Gulf Coast will get hit by a super hurricane in any particular year, but I certainly plan on it being hit again sometime over the next ten years:I wouldn't be surprised if it where hit by more then one" Joesph Romm
the book is copyrighted 2007.........................................
And it's not a prediction. It's a statement of probability.
Keep trying, Bear. Maybe someday, you'll figure out what a prediction is.
1) At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned,
2) The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. --Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
That's an mystery rumor speaking of unnamed people, not a prediction.3) A high-priority government report warns of climate change that will lead to floods and starvation. ‘Leading climatologists’ speak of a ‘detrimental global climatic change,’ threatening ‘the stability of most nations.’ The scenario is eerily familiar although the document — never made public before — dates from 1974. But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of global cooling, not warming. And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists. -- Maurizio Morabito
4) According to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, we only have 96 months left to save the planet.
5) ABC Science Show presenter Robyn Williams panics about global warming:
Obviously not a climate scientist. And again, not an inaccurate statement, as it's speaking of the far future, not 50 days.6) The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree to a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse."
Wow. You dance hard but not well. Share with us the definition of "statement of probability". I'll wait.
Where have they been milder?
And how exactly is that predictive?
In other words it is non falsifiable.
What is the other name for a non falsifiable science?
Really? Which one of those predictions came true?
"Milder and wetter winters", for example.
<Quoting botched Salon interview>
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress
And Bear whiffs again, posting the same old flawed Hansen interview. The interviewer there admitted that he screwed it up big time and misrepresented what Hansen said.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf
---
Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and reread the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.
---
Hansen's flooding prediction was not for "20 years from the time of the interview". It was for "40 years after a doubling of the CO2 concentration". Which was 350ppm at the time, so the clock on the 40 years starts ticking whenever 700 ppm is reached, which will be a while.
It's been known for 5 years now, that the Salon interview was botched. Deniers ... don't care. Poor Bear had no hope of knowing he was parroting a lie, because his cult leaders didn't want him to know that. Point is, poor Bear whiffed again in his quest to find some sort of failed prediction.
Ha try this one bitch I have the book right in front of me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, page 30
"I would not bet that the Mississippi Gulf Coast will get hit by a super hurricane in any particular year, but I certainly plan on it being hit again sometime over the next ten years:I wouldn't be surprised if it where hit by more then one" Joesph Romm
the book is copyrighted 2007.........................................
The 2014 Atlantic Hurricane Season marked the ninth consecutive year in which the U.S. did not sustain a major Category 3+ landfalling hurricane, which extends the alltime record by another year. It was also the quietest season in terms of named storms since 1997.”
Inconvenient Truths: 2014 Global Natural Disasters Down Massively! …No Trend In Tornado/Cyclones Since 1950!
Joseph J. Romm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Joseph Romm, 2007
Joseph J. Romm (born June 27, 1960) is an American author, blogger, physicist[1] and climate expert[2] who advocates reducing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming and increasing energy security through energy efficiency, green energy technologies and green transportation technologies.[3] Romm is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2009, Rolling Stone magazine named Romm to its list of "100 People Who Are Changing America".[4] and Time magazine named him one of its "Heroes of the Environment (2009)"
