Time for failed global warming predictions.

[westwall]

I'm trying to see what your point is, but failing....

oh you get it. We might be warming some but it's NATURAL and Mother earth has been warming and cooling for millions of YEARS before Scientist were able to be BOUGHT off

We have been warming and cooling naturally for millions of years.

What we haven't had is artificial man made warming in those millions of years. We don't understand the consequences of our actions.

Right now the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere is killing the seas. The sea takes the brunt of excess CO2 and this is changing the PH levels of the seas and destroying marine life there.

What happens if the seas die and can no longer do this? Has this ever happened in the past, or were the increases and decreases in CO2 levels regulated on a natural basis that we're no longer getting.

The simple fact is (and there are few 100% certain facts in this) that we just don't know. You're willing to go all gung ho on this one and believe the oil companies. I'm rather more cautious on the environment of the only planet we've got.

It's like being at home and saying "hey, let's light a big fire on the floor of the living room" and someone saying "but it might burn the house down" and the other person replying "but it might NOT burn the house down".

And there is no measurable human impact now. Either.

 

[westwall]

The irony of this poster is that the other side gets loads of funding from oil companies. Hmmmm forgot to mention that or you were using a biased cartoon?

As for getting stuck in ice, well, it's not our fault you don't understand how the world works.

obviously, neither do those scientists who got stuck, eh?

Er..... they probably do. However when you're in such places, you're always taking a risk.

People assume that the further the ice spreads, the more ice there is. Not true. It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted, then when it freezes again the wind is taking it out further and making the ice sheet larger, even though there is a lot less ice actually there.

It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted,

what causes the melt when the temperature never goes above -20 degree F. Pray tell this should be good. I'll tell you why after you can explain your statement.

Climate of Antarctica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 17.5 °C (63.5 °F) at Hope Bay on 24 March 2015."

-20 degrees huh? Never goes above huh?

There are serious questions about that "record" to the point that it is not official. The official record is still waaaay back in 1974 at 15C. Which is nothing special. In the 1850's whalers were able to sail over 200 miles closer to the South Pole than is possible today. That means the temp was much warmer than the present day. But don't let a little thing like a fact shake your faith.

 

[jc456]

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

Think what is evidence? I'm talking about predictions.

So, you want the world to go messed up? You're kind of dangerous.

You want to kill poor people with no evidence to show your proof. You're the fking dangerous one fkr

Now I want to kill poor people. Hmm. Are you drunk or something?

Exactly

 

[frigidweirdo]

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

Think what is evidence? I'm talking about predictions.

So, you want the world to go messed up? You're kind of dangerous.

You want to kill poor people with no evidence to show your proof. You're the fking dangerous one fkr

Now I want to kill poor people. Hmm. Are you drunk or something?

Exactly

Maybe you should keep away from debating when drunk then, nothing made sense.

 

[jc456]

The irony of this poster is that the other side gets loads of funding from oil companies. Hmmmm forgot to mention that or you were using a biased cartoon?

As for getting stuck in ice, well, it's not our fault you don't understand how the world works.

obviously, neither do those scientists who got stuck, eh?

Er..... they probably do. However when you're in such places, you're always taking a risk.

People assume that the further the ice spreads, the more ice there is. Not true. It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted, then when it freezes again the wind is taking it out further and making the ice sheet larger, even though there is a lot less ice actually there.

er.... they probably do? What the fk is that? They got stuck in summer ice which in the act alone they were totally clueless. So again, you have zip to add to the discussion cause all you're doing is posting garbage.

Firstly. Who do you think was in charge of the ship? Scientists or the ship's captain?

Secondly, if you go to places of extreme weather, like the poles, you take risks no matter what time of the year.

Thirdly, is this really your argument? Really?

Wow, who arranged the cruise,? The captain invited them? Hahahaha Hahahaha

 

[jc456]

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

Think what is evidence? I'm talking about predictions.

So, you want the world to go messed up? You're kind of dangerous.

You want to kill poor people with no evidence to show your proof. You're the fking dangerous one fkr

Now I want to kill poor people. Hmm. Are you drunk or something?

Exactly

Maybe you should keep away from debating when drunk then, nothing made sense.

What didn't you understand? You don't know what the word exactly is? Hahahaha Hahahaha

 

[mamooth]

In the 1850's whalers were able to sail over 200 miles closer to the South Pole than is possible today.

You mean they could sail through solid land or massive ice shelves in the 1850s?

The closest sea approaches to the South Pole are just off the Ross Ice Shelf or Filchner Ice Shelf. Sea ice currently retreats to the Ross Ice Shelf edge each southern-hemisphere summer. Hence, to sail closer to the South Pole than you can sail now, you'd have to sail through an ice shelf, or through solid land.

In any case, we'd love to see the details here.

 

[westwall]

In the 1850's whalers were able to sail over 200 miles closer to the South Pole than is possible today.

You mean they could sail through solid land or massive ice shelves in the 1850s?

The closest sea approaches to the South Pole are just off the Ross Ice Shelf or Filchner Ice Shelf. Sea ice currently retreats to the Ross Ice Shelf edge each southern-hemisphere summer. Hence, to sail closer to the South Pole than you can sail now, you'd have to sail through an ice shelf, or through solid land.

In any case, we'd love to see the details here.

The region that is now filled with ice, wasn't. Whalers (who took excellent navigational plots) were able to sail in open water where there is nothing but ice now. That is a solid historical fact. You know, the things you run from.

 

[mamooth]

The region that is now filled with ice, wasn't. Whalers (who took excellent navigational plots) were able to sail in open water where there is nothing but ice now. That is a solid historical fact. You know, the things you run from.

So your "solid historical fact" is that some whalers supposedly said so. And nothing else.

Two problems there.

1. It's totally unsupported.

2. It's so vague as to be meaningless.

Now, it is true whalers kept good records. Which show more ice in the past, at least in the Arctic.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140630094648.htm
---
For example we found that if you work your way through the months August to September which is the time of maximum melt, data shows in Baffin Bay, there was a persistent feature of middle ice in the early 19th century, which is not there today."
---

 

[frigidweirdo]

The irony of this poster is that the other side gets loads of funding from oil companies. Hmmmm forgot to mention that or you were using a biased cartoon?

As for getting stuck in ice, well, it's not our fault you don't understand how the world works.

obviously, neither do those scientists who got stuck, eh?

Er..... they probably do. However when you're in such places, you're always taking a risk.

People assume that the further the ice spreads, the more ice there is. Not true. It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted, then when it freezes again the wind is taking it out further and making the ice sheet larger, even though there is a lot less ice actually there.

er.... they probably do? What the fk is that? They got stuck in summer ice which in the act alone they were totally clueless. So again, you have zip to add to the discussion cause all you're doing is posting garbage.

Firstly. Who do you think was in charge of the ship? Scientists or the ship's captain?

Secondly, if you go to places of extreme weather, like the poles, you take risks no matter what time of the year.

Thirdly, is this really your argument? Really?

Wow, who arranged the cruise,? The captain invited them? Hahahaha Hahahaha

Do you always try and stop debate by talking nonsense?

 

[SSDD]

This graph is evidence of a scam

Yup. You've cracked it. A world wide scam to rip off a few dumb fuck American rightards. Curses. Foiled again.

Typical warmist answer....when faced with hard evidence of data tampering....you respond with a logical fallacy. Instead of showing your lack of intellectual depth how about you explain why in 1980, NOAA stated clearly that they had observed a global temperature decline between the years of 1921 and 1979...and that decline is not evident in your modern graph....what rational, scientifically valid explanation can you give for altering the record so heavily that the cooling trend NOAA detected then is no longer present in the record?

And in 1989 NOAA stated explicitly that most of the warming since 1881 happened before 1919. Now look at your graph from 1989 back to 1881....does the modern graph say that most of the warming up to that date happened prior to 1919? Explain why? What rational scientifically valid reason might there be for manipulating the data so heavily?.... You are a believer, lets hear your explanation.

I am working on a hypothesis here that you are nothing more than one of the army of useful idiots out there that climate pseudoscientists joke about.....I am going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction based on my hypothesis and predict that you do not give me a rational, scientifically valid reason for such heavy data manipulation and that you A) respond with another logical fallacy or B) ignore this question all together.

 

[SSDD]

Got a rational, scientifically valid reason to explain the alteration of the historical data record?....anything?....Buler?.....Buler?....Buler?.....

Absolutely. It's a world wide scam to rip off a few US dumb fuck rightards. It would have succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams if the dumb fuck rightards hadn't twigged.

You know, there is a whole long list of logical fallacies...if you are going to engage in such shallow, piss poor thinking, the least you could do would be to use a variety of them. It is clear that you can't actually engage the question with anything like a valid reason for the obvious difference between what NOAA was saying about the temperature in 1989 and what they are saying today.

 

[SSDD]

How does the ozone layer form?

What? Are you saying there isn't an ozone layer?

Of course there is an ozone "layer" I am asking you if you know how it got there and what it actually does. Those poor saps who bought the ozone hole scare clearly didn't and so were terrified....people who know why it is there and what it does, and what it is the result of were never afraid.

 

[SSDD]

Dumb fuck rightards are invincibly ignorant, except they've worked out that the whole rest of the world has invented this scam to rip them off. They're pretty clever after all, eh? And to think I was going to make a fortune off them. So much for the grant money.

Still waiting for a rational scientifically valid reason for the clear change in the historical temperature data record...in 1989 they said one thing and today, the graph no longer reflects the trends they noted back then...why? What sort of alteration can make records from a half century ago more accurate?

 

[SSDD]

“Beginning in a decade or two [i.e. by 2005], scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps…”

IDEAS & TRENDS (CONTINUED); A DIRE LONG-RANGE FORECAST

——————–

2007: U.N. Scientists say only eight years left to avoid worst effects

UN scientists warn time is running out to tackle global warming

——————–

2009: ABC News Envisioned Apocalyptic 2015 Triggered By Climate Change

Flashback: ABC News Envisioned Apocalyptic 2015 Triggered By Climate Change [VIDEO]

——————–

In August 2009, then Senator John Kerry said the Arctic would be ice-free by the summer of 2013

In August 2009, then Senator John Kerry... - Senator Ted Cruz | Facebook

——————–

“‘Excessively high temperatures’ are ‘already’ harming public health nationwide…”

— Barack Obama, Nov. 1, 2013

Executive Order: 'Excessively High Temperatures' 'Already' Harming Public Health

——————–

Inconvenient Truths: 2014 Atmospheric Natural Disasters Way Down …No Trend In Tornado/Cyclones Since 1950!

Inconvenient Truths: 2014 Global Natural Disasters Down Massively! …No Trend In Tornado/Cyclones Since 1950!

I have a lot more.

Oooops was this suppose to be in the environmental section or political? I think political, don't you?

And what did the other side predict? Nothing. Why? Because they don't have an argument, they simply bash everything the other side does.

One side is based around education and trying to understand. The other is based on hatred.

Why we don't predict abything about weather/climate and mother nature?


Because we are not stupid ducks.



We like hard science, we still don't have enough data.



.

Sure, don't have enough data. Who is getting the data? The people making predictions. Predictions are just that. The problem is many people will take predictions as PURE FACT and then slam them when they're wrong.

What do you expect?

You seem to think that we'll just suddenly understand everything one day. Maybe, once we've completely destroyed the planet, then, and only then, will we be 100% sure.

Tell me buckwheat....back when those crazy predictions were being made, were you speaking out saying that we don't have enough data to make such predictions?...were you speaking out saying that they were just predictions and didn't really hold any weight?...or were you, like you are today, right behind all the predictions being made today that won't come to pass...then when those predictions fail, will you be making the same excuse then?

They're predictions. They used what evidence they had. That's what predictions are.

So, no, I said they were predictions then and anything people say now I'll say they are still predictions and if you don't know what a prediction is, then you need to go get a dictionary.

Care to bring forward a quote or two from yourself back then distancing yourself from those "predictions"...stating that they were not based on any real data?...or are you just lying now in an effort to cover your complete support of the predictions back then?

 

[jc456]

obviously, neither do those scientists who got stuck, eh?

Er..... they probably do. However when you're in such places, you're always taking a risk.

People assume that the further the ice spreads, the more ice there is. Not true. It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted, then when it freezes again the wind is taking it out further and making the ice sheet larger, even though there is a lot less ice actually there.

er.... they probably do? What the fk is that? They got stuck in summer ice which in the act alone they were totally clueless. So again, you have zip to add to the discussion cause all you're doing is posting garbage.

Firstly. Who do you think was in charge of the ship? Scientists or the ship's captain?

Secondly, if you go to places of extreme weather, like the poles, you take risks no matter what time of the year.

Thirdly, is this really your argument? Really?

Wow, who arranged the cruise,? The captain invited them? Hahahaha Hahahaha

Do you always try and stop debate by talking nonsense?

only when idiots like you can't grasp the reality of the subject. See when one charters a boat, one owns that cruise, and the route was one requested by the scientists. Yet you, you feel inclined to blame the poor captain who is taking orders from the client. And then you ask me if I'm stopping debates. Dude, why can't you just accept that the scientists route put the ship into the middle of ice? Why is that so fkn difficult for you?

The scientists were playing show off, and failed. And,.........I laugh at their poor sense of reality.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Er..... they probably do. However when you're in such places, you're always taking a risk.

People assume that the further the ice spreads, the more ice there is. Not true. It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted, then when it freezes again the wind is taking it out further and making the ice sheet larger, even though there is a lot less ice actually there.

er.... they probably do? What the fk is that? They got stuck in summer ice which in the act alone they were totally clueless. So again, you have zip to add to the discussion cause all you're doing is posting garbage.

Firstly. Who do you think was in charge of the ship? Scientists or the ship's captain?

Secondly, if you go to places of extreme weather, like the poles, you take risks no matter what time of the year.

Thirdly, is this really your argument? Really?

Wow, who arranged the cruise,? The captain invited them? Hahahaha Hahahaha

Do you always try and stop debate by talking nonsense?

only when idiots like you can't grasp the reality of the subject. See when one charters a boat, one owns that cruise, and the route was one requested by the scientists. Yet you, you feel inclined to blame the poor captain who is taking orders from the client. And then you ask me if I'm stopping debates. Dude, why can't you just accept that the scientists route put the ship into the middle of ice? Why is that so fkn difficult for you?

The scientists were playing show off, and failed. And,.........I laugh at their poor sense of reality.

Ah, insults..... I don't do insulters....

 

[frigidweirdo]

And what did the other side predict? Nothing. Why? Because they don't have an argument, they simply bash everything the other side does.

One side is based around education and trying to understand. The other is based on hatred.

Why we don't predict abything about weather/climate and mother nature?


Because we are not stupid ducks.



We like hard science, we still don't have enough data.



.

Sure, don't have enough data. Who is getting the data? The people making predictions. Predictions are just that. The problem is many people will take predictions as PURE FACT and then slam them when they're wrong.

What do you expect?

You seem to think that we'll just suddenly understand everything one day. Maybe, once we've completely destroyed the planet, then, and only then, will we be 100% sure.

Tell me buckwheat....back when those crazy predictions were being made, were you speaking out saying that we don't have enough data to make such predictions?...were you speaking out saying that they were just predictions and didn't really hold any weight?...or were you, like you are today, right behind all the predictions being made today that won't come to pass...then when those predictions fail, will you be making the same excuse then?

They're predictions. They used what evidence they had. That's what predictions are.

So, no, I said they were predictions then and anything people say now I'll say they are still predictions and if you don't know what a prediction is, then you need to go get a dictionary.

Care to bring forward a quote or two from yourself back then distancing yourself from those "predictions"...stating that they were not based on any real data?...or are you just lying now in an effort to cover your complete support of the predictions back then?

No, I don't care to play your silly games.

 

[SSDD]

Why we don't predict abything about weather/climate and mother nature?


Because we are not stupid ducks.



We like hard science, we still don't have enough data.



.

Sure, don't have enough data. Who is getting the data? The people making predictions. Predictions are just that. The problem is many people will take predictions as PURE FACT and then slam them when they're wrong.

What do you expect?

You seem to think that we'll just suddenly understand everything one day. Maybe, once we've completely destroyed the planet, then, and only then, will we be 100% sure.

Tell me buckwheat....back when those crazy predictions were being made, were you speaking out saying that we don't have enough data to make such predictions?...were you speaking out saying that they were just predictions and didn't really hold any weight?...or were you, like you are today, right behind all the predictions being made today that won't come to pass...then when those predictions fail, will you be making the same excuse then?

They're predictions. They used what evidence they had. That's what predictions are.

So, no, I said they were predictions then and anything people say now I'll say they are still predictions and if you don't know what a prediction is, then you need to go get a dictionary.

Care to bring forward a quote or two from yourself back then distancing yourself from those "predictions"...stating that they were not based on any real data?...or are you just lying now in an effort to cover your complete support of the predictions back then?

No, I don't care to play your silly games.

Of course you don't...because there are no quotes form you speaking in such a rational tone...suggesting that the predictions were just that...that they were based on claims that aren't supported by the data...just like you aren't suggesting today that the claims are just opinions not supported by the data....you have been a first class passenger on the AGW crazy train since it left the station.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why we don't predict abything about weather/climate and mother nature?


Because we are not stupid ducks.



We like hard science, we still don't have enough data.



.

Sure, don't have enough data. Who is getting the data? The people making predictions. Predictions are just that. The problem is many people will take predictions as PURE FACT and then slam them when they're wrong.

What do you expect?

You seem to think that we'll just suddenly understand everything one day. Maybe, once we've completely destroyed the planet, then, and only then, will we be 100% sure.

Tell me buckwheat....back when those crazy predictions were being made, were you speaking out saying that we don't have enough data to make such predictions?...were you speaking out saying that they were just predictions and didn't really hold any weight?...or were you, like you are today, right behind all the predictions being made today that won't come to pass...then when those predictions fail, will you be making the same excuse then?

They're predictions. They used what evidence they had. That's what predictions are.

So, no, I said they were predictions then and anything people say now I'll say they are still predictions and if you don't know what a prediction is, then you need to go get a dictionary.

Care to bring forward a quote or two from yourself back then distancing yourself from those "predictions"...stating that they were not based on any real data?...or are you just lying now in an effort to cover your complete support of the predictions back then?

No, I don't care to play your silly games.

Runaway when confronted with facts.... Nice....