"Shocked!!! Shocked, I Tell You!"

[PoliticalChic]

Who ever could have guessed it!!!!

Well....not as shocked as Claude Rains....





This:

"Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,....z'
Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests


The new fall-back position:
"Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement."

And...
"They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference."
Ibid.






Know that old joke about a NYTimes headline, "World to end tomorrow- minorities hurt worst!!!"
When can we expect a retreat on that one, too?

 

[Camp]

You left out the parts in your link that explain why the threat has been reduced. You know, the part about solar and wind use being increased far more than what had been expected or predicted. You also left out the parts that pointed out the threat was only being delayed, not resolved.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You left out the parts in your link that explain why the threat has been reduced. You know, the part about solar and wind use being increased far more than what had been expected or predicted. You also left out the parts that pointed out the threat was only being delayed, not resolved.

No, you dunce....I provided the real point.

It represents a retreat from the bogus fear mongering of the Left.....the scam that utter imbeciles accept as the reason for global governance.

 

[Camp]

You left out the parts in your link that explain why the threat has been reduced. You know, the part about solar and wind use being increased far more than what had been expected or predicted. You also left out the parts that pointed out the threat was only being delayed, not resolved.

No, you dunce....I provided the real point.

It represents a retreat from the bogus fear mongering of the Left.....the scam that utter imbeciles accept as the reason for global governance.

No, you did what you usually do. You cherry picked the article and cut and pasted it to distort it. The proof is in the OP. All anyone needs to do is read your OP and read the link you got it from. The distortion via cut and pasting is obvious and inescapable.

 

[Camp]

Meanwhile, from the left out portions of the OP's article, the Chinese are surpassing the US in leaps and bounds in solar and wind energy development thanks to the scam promoted by people like the PoliticalChic that climate change isn't real or manmade and we can go ahead and rely on coal and fossil fuels forever. It's in the OP's link, conveniently cut out of the OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You left out the parts in your link that explain why the threat has been reduced. You know, the part about solar and wind use being increased far more than what had been expected or predicted. You also left out the parts that pointed out the threat was only being delayed, not resolved.

No, you dunce....I provided the real point.

It represents a retreat from the bogus fear mongering of the Left.....the scam that utter imbeciles accept as the reason for global governance.

No, you did what you usually do. You cherry picked the article and cut and pasted it to distort it. The proof is in the OP. All anyone needs to do is read your OP and read the link you got it from. The distortion via cut and pasting is obvious and inescapable.

Then why are you sweating?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Meanwhile, from the left out portions of the OP's article, the Chinese are surpassing the US in leaps and bounds in solar and wind energy development thanks to the scam promoted by people like the PoliticalChic that climate change isn't real or manmade and we can go ahead and rely on coal and fossil fuels forever. It's in the OP's link, conveniently cut out of the OP.

".... the Chinese are surpassing the US in leaps and bounds in solar and wind energy development ..."



Sooooo......when are you leaving?

I can help you pack.....or is this simply more Leftist hot air?




And now, a trip down Memory Lane, to see more idiots like you:
The idiots are the ones who swallowed this:

On January 25, 2006........

... while at the Sundance film festival, "politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years
the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said." 2006: Al Gore Does Sundance


BTW...in 1988, Ted Danson crowed that we had only ten years to save the oceans.

Then, even earlier....there was Chicken Little.....

Makes you look kinda stupid, huh?




Here, the short version of 'Global Warming,' for all ignorant sheep who accept the dogma:

“Mankind faces a crossroads.
One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.
The other, to total extinction.
Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”
Woody Allen

 

[Billy_Bob]

Who ever could have guessed it!!!!

Well....not as shocked as Claude Rains....





This:

"Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,....z'
Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests


The new fall-back position:
"Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement."

And...
"They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference."
Ibid.






Know that old joke about a NYTimes headline, "World to end tomorrow- minorities hurt worst!!!"
When can we expect a retreat on that one, too?

LOL

You mean to tell me they had their models WRONG? DO they even have one that is close to being right? Is this their "cover my ass" moment because they are exposed by real science?

So many questions....

The reality is, they do not know how to model the system, because they still do not understand it... A stunning admission about their once "settled" science..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Meanwhile, from the left out portions of the OP's article, the Chinese are surpassing the US in leaps and bounds in solar and wind energy development thanks to the scam promoted by people like the PoliticalChic that climate change isn't real or manmade and we can go ahead and rely on coal and fossil fuels forever. It's in the OP's link, conveniently cut out of the OP.

LOL

You missed the glaring point... They admit they do not know anything! They are making suppositions they cant back up with physical evidence. AND THEY ADMIT THEIR MODELING IS WRONG! So how can they make even this proclamation? If your models fail empirical review (in other words, their output does not match the observed evidence) then they do not model the system they were designed for. This is like the model saying the plane will crash but were going to fly it anyway... Idiot!

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is called failing Empirical Review.. The outputs do not match the observed and modeled system.

 

[Camp]

Meanwhile, from the left out portions of the OP's article, the Chinese are surpassing the US in leaps and bounds in solar and wind energy development thanks to the scam promoted by people like the PoliticalChic that climate change isn't real or manmade and we can go ahead and rely on coal and fossil fuels forever. It's in the OP's link, conveniently cut out of the OP.

LOL

You missed the glaring point... They admit they do not know anything! They are making suppositions they cant back up with physical evidence. AND THEY ADMIT THEIR MODELING IS WRONG! So how can they make even this proclamation? If your models fail empirical review (in other words, their output does not match the observed evidence) then they do not model the system they were designed for. This is like the model saying the plane will crash but were going to fly it anyway... Idiot!

You missed the point. I was not the one who posted the link. It is the OP's link. What I did is point out that the OP distorted the link that was provided and posted in the OP. The criticism's I made had nothing to do with the science or the model being used. My criticisms were non-scientific facts, but rather the conclusions made by ignoring those non-scientific facts, specifically the reduction in emissions due to replacing fossil fuel emissions caused by transferring to wind and solar generated energy sources far ahead of what was anticipated.

 

[miketx]

 

[Billy_Bob]

Meanwhile, from the left out portions of the OP's article, the Chinese are surpassing the US in leaps and bounds in solar and wind energy development thanks to the scam promoted by people like the PoliticalChic that climate change isn't real or manmade and we can go ahead and rely on coal and fossil fuels forever. It's in the OP's link, conveniently cut out of the OP.

LOL

You missed the glaring point... They admit they do not know anything! They are making suppositions they cant back up with physical evidence. AND THEY ADMIT THEIR MODELING IS WRONG! So how can they make even this proclamation? If your models fail empirical review (in other words, their output does not match the observed evidence) then they do not model the system they were designed for. This is like the model saying the plane will crash but were going to fly it anyway... Idiot!

You missed the point. I was not the one who posted the link. It is the OP's link. What I did is point out that the OP distorted the link that was provided and posted in the OP. The criticism's I made had nothing to do with the science or the model being used. My criticisms were non-scientific facts, but rather the conclusions made by ignoring those non-scientific facts, specifically the reduction in emissions due to replacing fossil fuel emissions caused by transferring to wind and solar generated energy sources far ahead of what was anticipated.

And yet the models do not show any of this. IF the model can not show the changes then the model is a failure! You have no empirical evidence or linkage proven by the scientific process. All you have is very loose correlation and no markers to prove causation. The OP's article shows them admitting this and you MISSED IT!

 

[Muhammed]

Meanwhile, from the left out portions of the OP's article, the Chinese are surpassing the US in leaps and bounds in solar and wind energy development thanks to the scam promoted by people like the PoliticalChic that climate change isn't real or manmade and we can go ahead and rely on coal and fossil fuels forever. It's in the OP's link, conveniently cut out of the OP.

LOL

You missed the glaring point... They admit they do not know anything! They are making suppositions they cant back up with physical evidence. AND THEY ADMIT THEIR MODELING IS WRONG! So how can they make even this proclamation? If your models fail empirical review (in other words, their output does not match the observed evidence) then they do not model the system they were designed for. This is like the model saying the plane will crash but were going to fly it anyway... Idiot!

You missed the point. I was not the one who posted the link. It is the OP's link. What I did is point out that the OP distorted the link that was provided and posted in the OP. The criticism's I made had nothing to do with the science or the model being used. My criticisms were non-scientific facts, but rather the conclusions made by ignoring those non-scientific facts, specifically the reduction in emissions due to replacing fossil fuel emissions caused by transferring to wind and solar generated energy sources far ahead of what was anticipated.

And yet the models do not show any of this. IF the model can not show the changes then the model is a failure! You have no empirical evidence or linkage proven by the scientific process. All you have is very loose correlation and no markers to prove causation. The OP's article shows them admitting this and you MISSED IT!

Actually, even their very loose correlation was proven to be fraudulent when a whistleblower leaked the climategate emails.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Meanwhile, from the left out portions of the OP's article, the Chinese are surpassing the US in leaps and bounds in solar and wind energy development thanks to the scam promoted by people like the PoliticalChic that climate change isn't real or manmade and we can go ahead and rely on coal and fossil fuels forever. It's in the OP's link, conveniently cut out of the OP.

LOL

You missed the glaring point... They admit they do not know anything! They are making suppositions they cant back up with physical evidence. AND THEY ADMIT THEIR MODELING IS WRONG! So how can they make even this proclamation? If your models fail empirical review (in other words, their output does not match the observed evidence) then they do not model the system they were designed for. This is like the model saying the plane will crash but were going to fly it anyway... Idiot!

You missed the point. I was not the one who posted the link. It is the OP's link. What I did is point out that the OP distorted the link that was provided and posted in the OP. The criticism's I made had nothing to do with the science or the model being used. My criticisms were non-scientific facts, but rather the conclusions made by ignoring those non-scientific facts, specifically the reduction in emissions due to replacing fossil fuel emissions caused by transferring to wind and solar generated energy sources far ahead of what was anticipated.

What is the benefit of wind and solar generation? It is unreliable and very expensive. You make the assumption that increasing CO2 was a negative, when the earths average CO2 levels are 600-1400ppm. That is the nominal levels for good plant growth and surviving and reducing bacterial infections.

I don't know where you get your info but its not even close to reality. And do you know how these wind mills affect global circulations? Neither do they... On a macro level, it devastates farms and animals in close proximity. You wont hear that from your eco nutter sites..

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, stinky facts from Silly Billy's ample asshole. Only outdone by the cherry picking posting from the poor little cretinous bitch, PC.

As has been pointed out in many places now, solar and wind are both cheaper than fossil fuels. And the advent of the grid scale batteries will make both 24/7. What is shocking is how much their lying has increased now that we have a pathological liar as President.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

• Henry Bodkin

18 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 7:15PM


Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh my, stinky facts from Silly Billy's ample asshole. Only outdone by the cherry picking posting from the poor little cretinous bitch, PC.

As has been pointed out in many places now, solar and wind are both cheaper than fossil fuels. And the advent of the grid scale batteries will make both 24/7. What is shocking is how much their lying has increased now that we have a pathological liar as President.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

• 
  
  
  • Henry Bodkin

18 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 7:15PM


Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

Backstroking in bold lettering... Your models all fail empirical review, why should I believe anything you post?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The new fall-back position:
"Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement."

SO we don't need the Paris agreement or any other agreement... LOL..

And the Alarmists are screeching BUT, BUT, BUT CO2....

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh my, stinky facts from Silly Billy's ample asshole. Only outdone by the cherry picking posting from the poor little cretinous bitch, PC.

As has been pointed out in many places now, solar and wind are both cheaper than fossil fuels. And the advent of the grid scale batteries will make both 24/7. What is shocking is how much their lying has increased now that we have a pathological liar as President.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

• 
  
  
  • Henry Bodkin

18 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 7:15PM


Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

The larger point is.........nobody STILL knows dick about where global temperatures are going. That's just a plain fact. "Decided science" is fake science..........much needs to be researched. Otherwise, its all theory s0ns!!!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Who ever could have guessed it!!!!

Well....not as shocked as Claude Rains....





This:

"Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,....z'
Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests


The new fall-back position:
"Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement."

And...
"They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference."
Ibid.






Know that old joke about a NYTimes headline, "World to end tomorrow- minorities hurt worst!!!"
When can we expect a retreat on that one, too?

Wow, another person who knows less than nothing about this topic, posting an article he never read and doesn't understand.... Shocked, shocked I tell you!