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

[flacaltenn]

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.

The wind/solar that you cited is empty token of WHY the conclusion was drawn that the original estimates of warming were way overblown. In a world that has increased it's emission scenarios much HIGHER than expected, wind/solar play a very limited role. Because you can't EXPAND GENERATION with just wind/solar. They are SUPPLEMENTS -- not alternatives. And if you genuinely NEED an additional GWatt of generation, any wind/solar have to be BACKED UP with a matching GWatt of backbone RELIABLE generation. You build almost TWICE AS MUCH new capability, for higher generation with wind/solar.

The REAL reason is -- that almost EVERY parameter of the models has been revised DRASTICALLY downwards since the hysterical panic in the 80s. The elements of GW theory that called for accelerations, net positive feedbacks, trigger temps have NOT manifested or been empirically observed in the nearly 40 years since the GW crazy train left the station. THIS is why the movement is losing traction. This is ALSO WHY, you dont get weekly, monthly, yearly NEW catastrophic predictions of the Temp anomaly in 2100. The days of panicking the herd are nearing an end.

And THIS analysis SHOULD have been public about a decade ago. But it was HERESY at the time to ADMIT that initial projections and science was flawed and not entirely rigid. Nor were all the "catastrophic" tenets of GW ever part of a "consensus".

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

The actual powers of CO2 to warm the Atmos, as described the basic and accepted Atmos Physic/Chemistry/GHouse Theory were NEVER enough to cause the political/media/social panic necessary to float this CC thingy as a movement. THOSE estimates are on the order of 1.1DegC per doubling of CO2 concentration in the Atmos. The PANIC was instilled by theories giving CO2 super powers in idealized "climate sensitivity numbers" based on speculation about "feedbacks".

At the 1.1DegC per CO2 doubling, GW would NEVER have been the major enviro issue for 2 or 3 decades. Because we haven't even reached the first doubling since the Industrial Age began. And the NEXT doubling, for the NEXT 1.1DegC requires TWICE the amount of the CO2 than the first one did. Because the REAL warming power of CO2 in the GHouse is exponentially retarded.

So the "skeptical view" in the science community was that the projections would be more like 1.5DegC by 2100, while the ENHANCED SUPERPOWER model of GW CO2 warming was initially guessing 4 to 6DegC by 2100.

Turns out -- 40 years later, we much closer to the skeptical concept than the catastrophic modeling that was done.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

The actual powers of CO2 to warm the Atmos, as described the basic and accepted Atmos Physic/Chemistry/GHouse Theory were NEVER enough to cause the political/media/social panic necessary to float this CC thingy as a movement. THOSE estimates are on the order of 1.1DegC per doubling of CO2 concentration in the Atmos. The PANIC was instilled by theories giving CO2 super powers in idealized "climate sensitivity numbers" based on speculation about "feedbacks".

At the 1.1DegC per CO2 doubling, GW would NEVER have been the major enviro issue for 2 or 3 decades. Because we haven't even reached the first doubling since the Industrial Age began. And the NEXT doubling, for the NEXT 1.1DegC requires TWICE the amount of the CO2 than the first one did. Because the REAL warming power of CO2 in the GHouse is exponentially retarded.

So the "skeptical view" in the science community was that the projections would be more like 1.5DegC by 2100, while the ENHANCED SUPERPOWER model of GW CO2 warming was initially guessing 4 to 6DegC by 2100.

Turns out -- 40 years later, we much closer to the skeptical concept than the catastrophic modeling that was done.

No, those numbers are still low. No, all of your squawking does not undermine accepted scientific theories. No, you have not outsmarted any scientist. no, you are not publishing any science to support your nonsense, nor could you ever. No, all scientists are not incompetent or liars, and, no, you have not thought of a single thing about this topic, ever, that every scientist in the world didn't think of before breakfast in their first year of grad school. Yes, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

The actual powers of CO2 to warm the Atmos, as described the basic and accepted Atmos Physic/Chemistry/GHouse Theory were NEVER enough to cause the political/media/social panic necessary to float this CC thingy as a movement. THOSE estimates are on the order of 1.1DegC per doubling of CO2 concentration in the Atmos. The PANIC was instilled by theories giving CO2 super powers in idealized "climate sensitivity numbers" based on speculation about "feedbacks".

At the 1.1DegC per CO2 doubling, GW would NEVER have been the major enviro issue for 2 or 3 decades. Because we haven't even reached the first doubling since the Industrial Age began. And the NEXT doubling, for the NEXT 1.1DegC requires TWICE the amount of the CO2 than the first one did. Because the REAL warming power of CO2 in the GHouse is exponentially retarded.

So the "skeptical view" in the science community was that the projections would be more like 1.5DegC by 2100, while the ENHANCED SUPERPOWER model of GW CO2 warming was initially guessing 4 to 6DegC by 2100.

Turns out -- 40 years later, we much closer to the skeptical concept than the catastrophic modeling that was done.

No, those numbers are still low. No, all of your squawking does not undermine accepted scientific theories. No, you have not outsmarted any scientist. no, you are not publishing any science to support your nonsense, nor could you ever. No, all scientists are not incompetent or liars, and, no, you have not thought of a single thing about this topic, ever, that every scientist in the world didn't think of before breakfast in their first year of grad school. Yes, you are embarrassing yourself.

Here you are again, attacking me personally, and not participating in a discussion. Do you understand where the 1.1DegC/doubling comes from? James Hansen in his FIRST PAPER on AGW in the 80s derived it.. I didn't make this up. It's in every Atmospheric Physic textbook ever written as a derived estimate of surface warming from CO2.

Your brand of low knowledge trolling is what's embarrassing. I never kid or lie about any of this. Not my fault you haven't made the investment.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

The actual powers of CO2 to warm the Atmos, as described the basic and accepted Atmos Physic/Chemistry/GHouse Theory were NEVER enough to cause the political/media/social panic necessary to float this CC thingy as a movement. THOSE estimates are on the order of 1.1DegC per doubling of CO2 concentration in the Atmos. The PANIC was instilled by theories giving CO2 super powers in idealized "climate sensitivity numbers" based on speculation about "feedbacks".

At the 1.1DegC per CO2 doubling, GW would NEVER have been the major enviro issue for 2 or 3 decades. Because we haven't even reached the first doubling since the Industrial Age began. And the NEXT doubling, for the NEXT 1.1DegC requires TWICE the amount of the CO2 than the first one did. Because the REAL warming power of CO2 in the GHouse is exponentially retarded.

So the "skeptical view" in the science community was that the projections would be more like 1.5DegC by 2100, while the ENHANCED SUPERPOWER model of GW CO2 warming was initially guessing 4 to 6DegC by 2100.

Turns out -- 40 years later, we much closer to the skeptical concept than the catastrophic modeling that was done.

No, those numbers are still low. No, all of your squawking does not undermine accepted scientific theories. No, you have not outsmarted any scientist. no, you are not publishing any science to support your nonsense, nor could you ever. No, all scientists are not incompetent or liars, and, no, you have not thought of a single thing about this topic, ever, that every scientist in the world didn't think of before breakfast in their first year of grad school. Yes, you are embarrassing yourself.

Here you are again, attacking me personally, and not participating in a discussion. Do you understand where the 1.1DegC/doubling comes from? James Hansen in his FIRST PAPER on AGW in the 80s derived it.. I didn't make this up. It's in every Atmospheric Physic textbook ever written as a derived estimate of surface warming from CO2.

Low knowledge trolling is embarrassing. I never kid or lie about any of this. Not my fault you haven't made the investment.

Those are not attacks, they are facts. Read them again. No, I will not be debating the veracity of scientific theories with a blog educated denier. But I will mock your methods and the inherent absurdity of internet squawkers like you thinking they are outsmarting thenworld's scientists, or the laughable implication that the scientists are all lying or incompetent. Block me I guess. Oh no, where will I ever find another blog educated climate expert on the internet....

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

The actual powers of CO2 to warm the Atmos, as described the basic and accepted Atmos Physic/Chemistry/GHouse Theory were NEVER enough to cause the political/media/social panic necessary to float this CC thingy as a movement. THOSE estimates are on the order of 1.1DegC per doubling of CO2 concentration in the Atmos. The PANIC was instilled by theories giving CO2 super powers in idealized "climate sensitivity numbers" based on speculation about "feedbacks".

At the 1.1DegC per CO2 doubling, GW would NEVER have been the major enviro issue for 2 or 3 decades. Because we haven't even reached the first doubling since the Industrial Age began. And the NEXT doubling, for the NEXT 1.1DegC requires TWICE the amount of the CO2 than the first one did. Because the REAL warming power of CO2 in the GHouse is exponentially retarded.

So the "skeptical view" in the science community was that the projections would be more like 1.5DegC by 2100, while the ENHANCED SUPERPOWER model of GW CO2 warming was initially guessing 4 to 6DegC by 2100.

Turns out -- 40 years later, we much closer to the skeptical concept than the catastrophic modeling that was done.

No, those numbers are still low. No, all of your squawking does not undermine accepted scientific theories. No, you have not outsmarted any scientist. no, you are not publishing any science to support your nonsense, nor could you ever. No, all scientists are not incompetent or liars, and, no, you have not thought of a single thing about this topic, ever, that every scientist in the world didn't think of before breakfast in their first year of grad school. Yes, you are embarrassing yourself.

Here you are again, attacking me personally, and not participating in a discussion. Do you understand where the 1.1DegC/doubling comes from? James Hansen in his FIRST PAPER on AGW in the 80s derived it.. I didn't make this up. It's in every Atmospheric Physic textbook ever written as a derived estimate of surface warming from CO2.

Low knowledge trolling is embarrassing. I never kid or lie about any of this. Not my fault you haven't made the investment.

Those are not attacks, they are facts. Read them again. No, I will not be debating the veracity of scientific theories with a blog educated denier. But I will mock your methods and the I herent absurdity of internet squawkers like you thinking they are outsmarting thenworld's scientists. Block me I guess. Oh no, where will I ever find another blog educated climate expert on the internet....

Oh no.. There goes my hope for an educated warmer to discuss with.

Those were "FACTS" ?? All the ad homs you just cast??? You're never gonna know why the GW Crazy Train derailed. You're just gonna be bitter and angry and as uninformed on the sciencey parts as you ever were...

 

[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?

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!

And yet another gullible dunce who bought the Global Governance Scam like it was on sale.

Soooo.....who ties your shoelaces for you?

 

[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!

And yet another gullible dunce who bought the Global Governance Scam like it was on sale.

Soooo.....who ties your shoelaces for you?

haha, yep, all those scientists are all liars. And you figgered 'em all out, with nothing but a GED and google. Okay!

 

[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?

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!

And yet another gullible dunce who bought the Global Governance Scam like it was on sale.

Soooo.....who ties your shoelaces for you?

haha, yep, all those scientists are all liars. And you figgered 'em all out, with nothing but a GED and google. Okay!

Are you hinting that we should compare educational resumes?

If so.....you'll be sorry.

 

[mamooth]

Back in reality, the models have been very good. Anyone saying otherwise is ... what's the word... lying.

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked, to find out that all deniers willingly lie on behalf of their political-religious cult.

Climate model projections compared to observations

 

[mamooth]

Do you understand where the 1.1DegC/doubling comes from?

It appears to be a number you made up.

James Hansen in his FIRST PAPER on AGW in the 80s derived it.. I didn't make this up.

Since I've looked at the papers, and the number you claim isn't there, the data leads to a conclusion that somebody made it up.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Lacis_la08000d.pdf

That 1981 paper says sensitivity is around 3.0C.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

In that 1981 paper, Hansen calculates sensitvity for simple and complex models. The complex models all give a sensitivity of around 3.0C. Only the simplest model says 1.2C, and the paper makes it clear that's an overly simplistic model.

I never kid or lie about any of this.

In that case, the only other explanation I see for your failure here would be complete ignorance of the science on your part.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you understand where the 1.1DegC/doubling comes from?

It appears to be a number you made up.

James Hansen in his FIRST PAPER on AGW in the 80s derived it.. I didn't make this up.

Since I've looked at the papers, and the number you claim isn't there, the data leads to a conclusion that somebody made it up.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Lacis_la08000d.pdf

That 1981 paper says sensitivity is around 3.0C.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

In that 1981 paper, Hansen calculates sensitvity for simple and complex models. The complex models all give a sensitivity of around 3.0C. Only the simplest model says 1.2C, and the paper makes it clear that's an overly simplistic model.

I never kid or lie about any of this.

In that case, the only other explanation I see for your failure here would be complete ignorance of the science on your part.

Aw poor Squidward.. Incapable of finding the "NO FEEDBACK" model in a simple SEMINAL paper on GW..

Just ... It's in there. From your last link.

Model Sensitivity

We examine the main processes known to influence climate model sensitivity by inserting them individually into the model, as summarized in Table 1. Model 1 has fixed absolute humidity, a fixed lapse rate of 6.5°C km-l in the convective region, fixed cloud altitude, and no snow/ice albedo feedback or vegetation albedo feedback. The increase of equilibrium surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 is ATs- 1.2°C. This case is of special interest because it is the purely radiative-convective result, with no feedback effects.

If you spent more time studying the issues and the lit, and LESS time attacking me and being a sissy drama queen, we might SOMEDAY, be able to talk...

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW Squidward. EVERYTHING I said is true. You will find the derivation for this in almost every Atmos Physics textbook. Even the IPCC has presented this fact. And it's generally accepted by warmers and skeptics alike.

I "made up" NOTHING... Waiting for the apology....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Back in reality, the models have been very good. Anyone saying otherwise is ... what's the word... lying.

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked, to find out that all deniers willingly lie on behalf of their political-religious cult.

Climate model projections compared to observations

Yep.. Move the training point from 1990 and then erase the divergence... More left wing hokey pokey and lies...

 

[SSDD]

Yep.. Move the training point from 1990 and then erase the divergence... More left wing hokey pokey and lies...

The sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is on a steady march to zero....wish it weren't such a long march, but false science fights for survival even more tenaciously than false religion...

 

[mamooth]

BTW Squidward. EVERYTHING I said is true.

No, your story is a wacky conspiracy theory. As someone once said, the most important thing in science is not to fool yourself. You devote almost all of your intelligence into fooling yourself, and you succeed.

Your conspiracy theory has two really obvious things working against it.

First, it assumes that even as far back as 1981, scientists were plotting the great socialist takeover of the world, which is why they added feedback to the most simple model.

Second, it fails to account for the way that the real world has ended up very close to the models, but has diverged wildly from your claims. So, according to your kook theory, being proven correct proves the scientists were doing bad science.

You will find the derivation for this in almost every Atmos Physics textbook.

And they also include the feedbacks that you claim nobody talked about in 1981, even though the papers show they did.

I "made up" NOTHING... Waiting for the apology....

The fact that you sincerely believe in your conspiracy theory makes it no less fake and stupid. Being that I'm not PC, I won't say that your opinion is just as valid because you _feel_ it's right. Your conspiracy theory is bullshit.

Go on now. Do what you always do. Find ways to evade. Hurl some insults while simultaneously whining about being insulted, then loudly announce you're putting me on ignore. Which you've done before, and yet you're talking to me now, so it's clear you don't ever actually do that. It's just an excuse you use to pout and run.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW Squidward. EVERYTHING I said is true.

No, your story is a wacky conspiracy theory. As someone once said, the most important thing in science is not to fool yourself. You devote almost all of your intelligence into fooling yourself, and you succeed.

Your conspiracy theory has two really obvious things working against it.

First, it assumes that even as far back as 1981, scientists were plotting the great socialist takeover of the world, which is why they added feedback to the most simple model.

Second, it fails to account for the way that the real world has ended up very close to the models, but has diverged wildly from your claims. So, according to your kook theory, being proven correct proves the scientists were doing bad science.

You will find the derivation for this in almost every Atmos Physics textbook.

And they also include the feedbacks that you claim nobody talked about in 1981, even though the papers show they did.

I "made up" NOTHING... Waiting for the apology....

The fact that you sincerely believe in your conspiracy theory makes it no less fake and stupid. Being that I'm not PC, I won't say that your opinion is just as valid because you _feel_ it's right. Your conspiracy theory is bullshit.

Go on now. Do what you always do. Find ways to evade. Hurl some insults while simultaneously whining about being insulted, then loudly announce you're putting me on ignore. Which you've done before, and yet you're talking to me now, so it's clear you don't ever actually do that. It's just an excuse you use to pout and run.

You lie like a rug. NEVER had you on ignore. It's too damn entertaining to watch you flail. I IGNORE MOST of your posts -- like everyone should, but never used the ignore button. Can't actually anyways, because of my "other job".

I didn't even offer a THEORY -- I just stated facts. Facts that your ignorant whiny ass couldn't remember from the VERY LINKS THAT YOU POSTED.. You're useless --- that's why you're not on ignore.

 

[IanC]

Flac is right, or at least more correct than others here. CO2 is a stable, reasonably well mixed gas that has a predictable warming influence of about 1C per doubling.

Water, water vapour, clouds are highly variable and localized, making predictions difficult or impossible. Add in that water in its various forms has both warming and cooling functions, and you are left with speculation that depends on the assumptions chosen.

Skeptics and Lukewarmers are unconvinced that the assumptions made in the models actually reflect reality. The data, even after massive adjustments, concur that models overpredict warming.

CO2 causes some warming. Water feedbacks are highly speculative and wrong by inspection.

It is not antiscience to accept one concept and reject the other. Exactly the opposite in fact.

 

[polarbear]

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?

Yeah it was only a question of time when, not if the alarmist would use this back door to save face as it becomes more and more obvious that their hyped predictions will not materialize.
Now we are supposed to believe that they deserve credit for less of a temperature rise due to the "green energy" they are advocating...while all the while CO2 has gone up and temperature did not follow.
I have seen it all before. These so called scientists, which are in reality political activists that get a quicky science diploma to masquerade as "scientists" made similar alarmist statements about the ozone hole, acid rain, Mercury and PCBs everywhere in the food chain and so on and on.
Each time they credited their regulations or policy even though the ozone whole went back to normal long before the outlawing of CFC's actually decreased them. Same thing with the PCB, Hg and the SO2 /acid rain.
So why not do it again with the CO2...there are enough idiots who will re-tweet it on social media which in turn will support the usual " a vast majority agrees" bullshit.
Aaah I'm as much bored with all of this crap as this bear who was in today's Manitoba news:

 

[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?

Yeah it was only a question of time when, not if the alarmist would use this back door to save face as it becomes more and more obvious that their hyped predictions will not materialize.
Now we are supposed to believe that they deserve credit for less of a temperature rise due to the "green energy" they are advocating...while all the while CO2 has gone up and temperature did not follow.
I have seen it all before. These so called scientists, which are in reality political activists that get a quicky science diploma to masquerade as "scientists" made similar alarmist statements about the ozone hole, acid rain, Mercury and PCBs everywhere in the food chain and so on and on.
Each time they credited their regulations or policy even though the ozone whole went back to normal long before the outlawing of CFC's actually decreased them. Same thing with the PCB, Hg and the SO2 /acid rain.
So why not do it again with the CO2...there are enough idiots who will re-tweet it on social media which in turn will support the usual " a vast majority agrees" bullshit.
Aaah I'm as much bored with all of this crap as this bear who was in today's Manitoba news:

View attachment 152109

Most of the modeling community has moved their training point for their models to 2008-2010. This move conveniently erases the massive divergence of the models (from 1990) as they now hind cast them away to train the model. This, they hoped, would give them 30 or so more years before they were found out and called out for their deception. Worse still, they have used the same failed models and forcings now expecting a different result.. I believe this falls under the definition of insanity.