Staggering climate contradiction - data that can be fudged says "warming," data that cannot be fudged says "no warming"

[Dagosa]

You cannot produce a photo.

WHY?

Can you ? NASA takes measurements…you want a photo. I have one for you….

 

[Dagosa]

Climate Change is the science/study of how/why/when/what of Earth's climate parameters.

Global Warming is a THEORY that Co2 is the cause. That THEORY got REFUTED by the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps we have, satellites and balloons.


Many times, the Co2 Fraud will accuse you of being a "climate denier" for suggesting Co2 does nothing. That is a "wordsmith."

Try to get this right.

Earth's climate does change.

Co2 has nothing to do with Earth climate change. And those who deny that truth are the real "climate deniers."

More made up shit. YOU claimed there was a theory that CO2 heated the atmosphere directly…why did you make up that idea ?

 

[Dagosa]

Global Warming is a THEORY that Co2 is the cause.

That’s made up shit. There is no such theory You imbecile.
You can’t read and you keep getting it wrong, imbecile.
You have no idea what AGW is about do you, so you make up shit, claim science says it then try to disprove your own made up shit. Back for another try, bubba.

 

[Dagosa]

Global Warming is a THEORY that Co2 is the cause. That THEORY got REFUTED by the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps we have, satellites and balloons.

Ha ha…another lie, we don’t measure atmospheric temps as a function of AGW… dufus. You’re a lunatic. We measure CO2 concentrations in a portion of the atmosphere…
Why do you make up this shit ?

 

[Dagosa]

You're running into the same problem I've had.

Like you, I also am trying to research what so many people are talking about, but in my case I just want to find out what the complaint is. Also like you, I'm not only getting no cooperation but I'm getting no end of condemnation for no jumping on their band wagon.

Something foul is going on here.

That’s funny. You’re just after an argument. As NASA…dah.

 

[EMH]

Can you ? NASA takes measurements…you want a photo. I have one for you….
View attachment 946764

A confession that there are NO PHOTOS showing "ocean rise" except from the South Pacific from islands approaching PROF....


Why are there NO PHOTOS of OCEAN RISE??

Well, BECAUSE THERE IS NO OCEAN RISE, BECAUSE EARTH IS NOT EXPERIENCING AN ONGOING NET ICE MELT and hence IS NOT WARMING.

 

[EMH]

That’s made up shit. There is no such theory You imbecile.
You can’t read and you keep getting it wrong, imbecile.
You have no idea what AGW is about do you, so you make up shit, claim science says it then try to disprove your own made up shit. Back for another try, bubba.

So you now admit Co2 is NOT THE CAUSE?

You admit the truth of the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing NO WARMING in the atmosphere during a period of rising Co2 aka Co2 does NOTHING?

 

[Robert W]

Ha ha…another lie, we don’t measure atmospheric temps as a function of AGW… dufus. You’re a lunatic. We measure CO2 concentrations in a portion of the atmosphere…
Why do you make up this shit ?

Why do you fuck up the climate?

 

[Dagosa]

You cannot produce a photo.

WHY?

Here.
Global Warming is a THEORY that Co2 is the cause. That THEORY got REFUTED by the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps we have, satellites and balloons.

So you now admit Co2 is NOT THE CAUSE?

You admit the truth of the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing NO WARMING in the atmosphere during a period of rising Co2 aka Co2 does NOTHING?

i admit there is no such theory that co2 directly increases temps in the atmosphere….its made up shit . Funny from illiterates.

 

[Dagosa]

Here.
Global Warming is a THEORY that Co2 is the cause. That THEORY got REFUTED by the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps we have, satellites and balloons.

i admit there is no such theory that co2 directly increases temps in the atmosphere….its made up shit . Funny from illiterates.

Cause of what ? See if you know ?

 

[Robert W]

Mighty kind of you….

For a guilty man to rant as you do, frankly stuns me. You are admitting you warm Earth. Amazing confession.

 

[Robert W]

Heavily bias towards scientific evidence from any of the climate research facilities YOU avoid except by mistake.. While your‘s is made up shit.

See folks, again he proves I am correct. He is extremely biased.

 

[Dagosa]

See folks, again he proves I am correct. He is extremely biased.

How can you be correct about a theory that doesn’t exist.

You made up the shit that CO2 heats the atmosphere when it heats the surface. Plenty of proof of that. You’re just too stupid to even ask…hilarious.

 

[Batcat]

Climate Change is the science/study of how/why/when/what of Earth's climate parameters.

Global Warming is a THEORY that Co2 is the cause. That THEORY got REFUTED by the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps we have, satellites and balloons.


Many times, the Co2 Fraud will accuse you of being a "climate denier" for suggesting Co2 does nothing. That is a "wordsmith."

Try to get this right.

Earth's climate does change.

Co2 has nothing to do with Earth climate change. And those who deny that truth are the real "climate deniers."

The climate is changing. Not unusual at all. The question is how much warming does man made pollution add.

Politicians want to save the planet and make bundles of money at the same time for their supporters and themselves. I fear politics is being mixed with science and the result is junk science.

I would like to see a TOTALLY INDEPENDENT group of scientists funded to study climate change. Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen and you can bet big bucks would be offered by both sides of the issue in an attempt to influence the results.

 

[Dagosa]

The climate is changing. Not unusual at all. The question is how much warming does man made pollution add.

Politicians want to save the planet and make bundles of money at the same time for their supporters and themselves. I fear politics is being mixed with science and the result is junk science.

I would like to see a TOTALLY INDEPENDENT group of scientists funded to study climate change. Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen and you can bet big bucks would be offered by both sides of the issue in an attempt to influence the results.

Partially right. And, we know by how much we add. Man increases the rate of global warming, a trend that stsrted long before modern man existed. The rate is accelerating and it’s an easy to see. Look ar any chart of temperatures over the last one million or 100,000 years or even the last 1000 years….look at them..

 

[Batcat]

Partially right. And, we know by how much we add. Man increases the rate of global warming, a trend that stsrted long before modern man existed. The rate is accelerating and it’s an easy to see. Look ar any chart of temperatures over the last one million or 100,000 years or even the last 1000 years….look at them..

As I have pointed out there have been numerous false predictions based on erroneous or possibly altered data that haven’t come true.

That leads people like me to distrust the data you mention. That trust will not be rebuilt overnight.

It is like financial experts who constantly predict a stock market crash in the next couple of years so buy silver and gold now. When the crash never happens people stop listening.

The Risks of Communicating Extreme Climate Forecasts - Engineering and Public Policy - College of Engineering - Carnegie Mellon University

Apocalypse Now? The all-too-common practice of making climate doomsday forecasts is not just bad science, it’s also a terrible way to communicate important information says CMU's David Rode and Paul Fischbeck.

www.cmu.edu

For decades, climate change researchers and activists have used dramatic forecasts to attempt to influence public perception of the problem and as a call to action on climate change. These forecasts have frequently been for events that might be called “apocalyptic,” because they predict cataclysmic events resulting from climate change.

In a new paper published in the International Journal of Global Warming, Carnegie Mellon University’s David Rode and Paul Fischbeck argue that making such forecasts can be counterproductive. “Truly apocalyptic forecasts can only ever be observed in their failure—that is the world did not end as predicted,” says Rode, adjunct research faculty with the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, “and observing a string of repeated apocalyptic forecast failures can undermine the public’s trust in the underlying science.”

Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.

Fischbeck noted, “from a forecasting perspective, the ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong, but also that so many of them never admitted to any uncertainty about the date. About 43% of the forecasts in our dataset made no mention of uncertainty.”

snip

Rode and Fischbeck argue that scientists must take extraordinary caution in communicating events of great consequence. When it comes to climate change, the authors advise “thinking small.” That is, focusing on making predictions that are less grandiose and shorter in term. “If you want people to believe big predictions, you first need to convince them that you can make little predictions,” says Rode.

Fischbeck added, “We need forecasts of a greater variety of climate variables, we need them made on a regular basis, and we need expert assessments of their uncertainties so people can better calibrate themselves to the accuracy of the forecaster.”

 

[Dagosa]

As I have pointed out there have been numerous false predictions based on erroneous or possibly altered data that haven’t come true.

That leads people like me to distrust the data you mention. That trust will not be rebuilt overnight.

It is like financial experts who constantly predict a stock market crash in the next couple of years so buy silver and gold now. When the crash never happens people stop listening.

The Risks of Communicating Extreme Climate Forecasts - Engineering and Public Policy - College of Engineering - Carnegie Mellon University

Apocalypse Now? The all-too-common practice of making climate doomsday forecasts is not just bad science, it’s also a terrible way to communicate important information says CMU's David Rode and Paul Fischbeck.

www.cmu.edu

For decades, climate change researchers and activists have used dramatic forecasts to attempt to influence public perception of the problem and as a call to action on climate change. These forecasts have frequently been for events that might be called “apocalyptic,” because they predict cataclysmic events resulting from climate change.

In a new paper published in the International Journal of Global Warming, Carnegie Mellon University’s David Rode and Paul Fischbeck argue that making such forecasts can be counterproductive. “Truly apocalyptic forecasts can only ever be observed in their failure—that is the world did not end as predicted,” says Rode, adjunct research faculty with the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, “and observing a string of repeated apocalyptic forecast failures can undermine the public’s trust in the underlying science.”

Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.

Fischbeck noted, “from a forecasting perspective, the ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong, but also that so many of them never admitted to any uncertainty about the date. About 43% of the forecasts in our dataset made no mention of uncertainty.”

snip

Rode and Fischbeck argue that scientists must take extraordinary caution in communicating events of great consequence. When it comes to climate change, the authors advise “thinking small.” That is, focusing on making predictions that are less grandiose and shorter in term. “If you want people to believe big predictions, you first need to convince them that you can make little predictions,” says Rode.

Fischbeck added, “We need forecasts of a greater variety of climate variables, we need them made on a regular basis, and we need expert assessments of their uncertainties so people can better calibrate themselves to the accuracy of the forecaster.”

The vast majority of all predictions are spot on.

 

[Batcat]

The vast majority of all predictions are spot on.

But the ones that are not “spot on” are WAY OFF.

I content that is what hurts your Global Warming Religion the worst. Stop people, especially politicians and a few scientists, from making “end of the world just around the corner predictions.“The media may love such predictions but they hurt your credibility with the general public.

For example: …

Ocasio-Cortez: ‘World will end in 12 years’ if climate change not addressed​

BY JOHN BOWDEN - 01/22/19 8:27 AM ET

Ocasio-Cortez: ‘World will end in 12 years’ if climate change not addressed

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday said she thinks that there is an urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will “destroy the planet” in…

thehill.com

 

[expat_panama]

The vast majority of all predictions are spot on.

But the ones that are not “spot on” are WAY OFF.

I content that is what hurts your Global Warming Religion the worst. Stop people, especially politicians and a few scientists, from making “end of the world just around the corner predictions.“The media may love such predictions but they hurt your credibility with the general public.

For example: …

Ocasio-Cortez: ‘World will end in 12 years’ if climate change not addressed​

BY JOHN BOWDEN - 01/22/19 8:27 AM ET

Ocasio-Cortez: ‘World will end in 12 years’ if climate change not addressed

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday said she thinks that there is an urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will “destroy the planet” in…

thehill.com

The story goes that when OAC was asked about that prediction she said she was just kidding. Meanwhile, let's all agree that:

1. Predictions are very difficult, especially those about the future. It's easy to say the earth will warm up and it's also easy to say it wont.
2. The earth isn't doomed yet, and nobody's got temp readings to show it's warmed yet. OK, so we get a hot day once in a while, then we get a cold day. What we know for sure is that in the past the earth was hotter than it is today and compared to other times it was colder.

 

[Dagosa]

The story goes that when OAC was asked about that prediction she said she was just kidding. Meanwhile, let's all agree that:

1. Predictions are very difficult, especially those about the future. It's easy to say the earth will warm up and it's also easy to say it wont.
2. The earth isn't doomed yet, and nobody's got temp readings to show it's warmed yet. OK, so we get a hot day once in a while, then we get a cold day. What we know for sure is that in the past the earth was hotter than it is today and compared to other times it was colder.

Absolutely false. An example is the claim that NY would flood under storm surges. Deniers just keep repeating it for every days. Science makes no mistakes because it’s always based upon the evidence they have at the time. Deniers just aregue in absolutes because either they are confused or they are trying to confuse their minions. .