Some Failed Climate Predictions

[Sunsettommy]

There have been 57 comments to this point, to see that warmists provided ZERO response to the content of post #1, it is clear they have none. Thus their hilarious avoidance of the well documented failures pointed out in post #1 means they KNOW it is true and can't counter it.

Thank you warmists!

Sunset....its what you see in here. Invariably. Skeptics have been dominating this forum for 10 years. Your recent arrival just makes the scoreboard that much more lopsided!!

Really...imo...Edthecynic is the sole progressive in here with any balls. Nobody else is legit.....fakers and/or insult throwers all.

It is what I see EVERYWHERE I visit and comment in, where their treatment of reality is a terror to them.

It is worse than usual here, because other places they at least debate a tiny bit ON THE TOPIC!

 

[skookerasbil]

First link references a proven fraudulent graph as its primary evidence. Furthermore it falls into the "correlation equals causation fallacy' that all non scientific groups resort to. Which is tragic when one considers the source is NASA. Well NASA GISS, and they are known fraudsters.

Second link resorts to outright data fabrication (proven) to support its silliness.

Third link yet again resorts to cherry picking data to compile its maps.

Fourth link is mainly opinion supported by failed theory.

Fifth link is opinion.

Sixth link is opinion.

Seventh link once again resorts to the correlation equals causation logic fail.

Eighth link is a "yeah us" page.

Ninth link is the famous trenberth paper where he claims the heat is hiding in the ocean deep BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND IT!

Tenth link is once again opinion. It yet again resorts to the correlation equals causation logic fail.

Eleventh link is to our favorite comic strip writers web page which simply regurgitates the same correlation equals causation logic fails that the whole House of Cards "theory" of AGW is built upon.

In other words you base your entire belief system on proven lies, and logic fails.

GREAT JOB!

His first 8 Links are NASA.
Then a few Class Blogs like 'Popular Science.'

The Idiots on the denial side use NO Mainstream Links/Orgs, but Jokes like WUWT like the OP.
Virtually EVERY credible Science Org on the planet agrees with GW and AGW.

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions...

And of course there are going to be "SOME" Failed predictions in the Thousands of the Huge body/Huge Consensus on AGW. Some other have been successful.

Most Deniers Got the 1998-2012 "Pause" wrong.
There was None.
The Ten Hottest Years, all 1998 -2017.
The 4 Warmest, the last 4.
Bye Conspiracy clowns
`

Lol... only progressives never heard the saying "opinions are like assholes everyone's got one".

The NFL draft was last night.... every idiot football fan has an opinion on their teams selection. They can go to Buffalo Wild Wings and raise their chicken wing high in the air and proclaim triumph. The guy could even take his team colors and starting marching around the restaurant. But if you're a Cleveland Browns fan nobody watching is going to give a shit..... because you're irrelevant. The New England Patriots fan doesn't even need to go to the bar for the draft.

The progressive parading around the banner of the consensus science might as well be a Cleveland Browns fan. They can take all the bows they, want but no one is noticing..... because they're not even getting close to the ultimate prize.

The progressive just like the Cleveland Browns fan can find much solace in these minuscule victories. But deep down they know at the end of the day they're taking their bat and ball and going home losers.( see Cap and Trade / Paris Treaty / laughable growth of renewables )

After 20 years of displaying the banner, THE SCIENCE IS DECIDED, what do progressives have to show for it? Where has all the decided science had any impact on public policy anywhere in the world? The answer is, it has not impacted dick. Outside the internet forums nobody is caring.

That is not an opinion, it is scientific fact and no it is not a conspiracy, conspiracy nut job.

I think you are scared of documented reality that this warming period since the late 1970's is no different from other warming periods back to the 1800's, since you keep avoiding it every time it is brought up.

I think I will go with every scientist in the world who is not bought off, thanks.

Laugh my ass off .....and you're calling everybody else a conspiracy guy.

Hey s0n.... not sure about other forums but in this one the progressive gets their clock cleaned routinely.

 

[Billy_Bob]

First link references a proven fraudulent graph as its primary evidence. Furthermore it falls into the "correlation equals causation fallacy' that all non scientific groups resort to. Which is tragic when one considers the source is NASA. Well NASA GISS, and they are known fraudsters.

Second link resorts to outright data fabrication (proven) to support its silliness.

Third link yet again resorts to cherry picking data to compile its maps.

Fourth link is mainly opinion supported by failed theory.

Fifth link is opinion.

Sixth link is opinion.

Seventh link once again resorts to the correlation equals causation logic fail.

Eighth link is a "yeah us" page.

Ninth link is the famous trenberth paper where he claims the heat is hiding in the ocean deep BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND IT!

Tenth link is once again opinion. It yet again resorts to the correlation equals causation logic fail.

Eleventh link is to our favorite comic strip writers web page which simply regurgitates the same correlation equals causation logic fails that the whole House of Cards "theory" of AGW is built upon.

In other words you base your entire belief system on proven lies, and logic fails.

GREAT JOB!

His first 8 Links are NASA.
Then a few Class Blogs like 'Popular Science.'

The Idiots on the denial side use NO Mainstream Links/Orgs.
Virtually EVERY credible Science Org on the planet agrees with GW and AGW.

And of course there are going to be "SOME" Failed predictions in the Thousands of the Huge body/Huge Consensus on AGW. Some other have been successful.

Most Deniers Got the 1998-2012 "Pause" wrong.
There was None.
The Ten Hottest Years, all 1998 -2017.
The 4 Warmest, the last 4.
Bye Clown.
`

No, they are NASA GISS. Caught multiple times faking and altering data to support their fraud. Here is the paper submitted by a German scientist where he lays out chapter and verse how GISS has been faking the data. In other words...it ain't real.


Sind die Klimadaten manipuliert?
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert hat in 36 Ländern beim Bau von 83 Talsperren beraten. Auf die Untersuchung der Felsdurchlässigkeit und die Methoden ihrer Abdichtung hat sich der Geologe spezialisiert. Genaue Messungen, präzise statistische Erhebungen waren nötig, um spätere Mängel oder gar eine Katastrophe ausschließen zu können.

Mit dieser methodischen Gründlichkeit hat er nach seiner Pensionierung begonnen, den Klimawandel zu hinterfragen. Er begann, wie im Studium gelernt die Temperaturmessungen der üblichen Warm- und Kaltphasen auszuwerten. Seit 1880 gab es schon ein weltweites Netz. Die so ermittelten Daten werden vom Goddard Institut of Space Studies (GISS) einer Abteilung der NASA verwaltet und im Internet angeboten. Von den mittlerweile 7365 Stationen liegen auswertbare Datenreihen von 1153 Stationen für die Zeit ab 1881 vor. Diese Zahlen sind auch die Grundlage, mit denen die NASA das IPCC, den sogenannten Weltklimarat beliefert. Und aus diesen öffentlich zugängigen Daten hat Ewert eine eher unglaubliche Entdeckung gemacht: Zwischen den Jahren 2010 und 2012 wurden die seit 1881 gemessenen Temperaturen massiv im Nachhinein verändert, so dass sich vor allem für den Zeitraum ab 1950 eine deutliche Klimaerwärmung ergibt, die es vorher so nicht gab.

Sind die Klimadaten manipuliert?

Loved the link...

As I speak German it wasn't a problem..

Translated:
Are the climate data manipulated?
Professor Friedrich Karl Ewert advised in 36 countries on the construction of 83 dams. The geologist specializes in investigating the permeability of rocks and the methods of sealing them. Accurate measurements, precise statistical surveys were needed to rule out later shortcomings or even a disaster.

With this methodological thoroughness, he began to question climate change after retirement. He began to evaluate the temperature measurements of the usual hot and cold phases as learned during his studies. Since 1880 there was already a worldwide network. The data thus obtained are managed by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) of a department of NASA and offered on the Internet. Of the meanwhile 7365 stations there are evaluable data series from 1153 stations for the period from 1881 onwards. These figures are also the basis by which NASA supplies the IPCC, the so-called IPCC. And from these publicly available data, Ewert has made a rather incredible discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012, the temperatures measured since 1881 were massively changed in hindsight,

It reads like a conspiracy theory, which Ewert writes in the summary of his years of Sisyphus work: Comparing the data from 2010 with those of 2012 shows, the NASA GISS has changed their own records so that we have a significant, especially since the beginning of the post-war period Global warming that does not exist.

Ewert had noticed in a report that the temperature data from Reykjavik and Godthab Nuur had been changed retrospectively. For the data from 2012, this resulted in a higher temperature rise in these Arctic stations than in the numbers before 2010. An analysis was possible because the data offered by NASA-GISS were archived before 2010 and could therefore be compared with those of after 2012 ,

Ewert randomly selected another 120 stations around the world and set to work to compare data from the years before 2010 and after 2012. And he always came to the same conclusion: The temperatures delivered from 2012 showed a higher warming, as the published until 2010. In order to be able to discover these, say, falsifications not so easy, ten different methods were used, which open only to those who has both groups of data and is not afraid to compare them before the mammoth task. One of the foundations of this work are those published by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are the published seven warming and cooling epochs, which begin in 1881 and which are based on 1097 measurement stations.

Thus, in 1881 we had a mean global temperature of 13.8 degrees Celsius, which dropped to 12.9 degrees by 1895, then rose to 14.3 degrees by 1905, dropped to below 12.9 degrees in 1920, to 13.9 in 1930 Increased to 13 degrees in 1975, increased to 14 degrees by the year 2000, and since then has cooled to 13.2 degrees by 2010. The hitherto warm year 2015 has no decisive importance on the long-term trend. It only shows that it is 1 degree warmer in 2015 than 1880, which means no turnaround for a year yet.

During this period, the CO2 concentration has increased from 3 parts in 10 000 parts of air to 4 parts without affecting the cycles of increase or decrease in temperature. As I said: These are all data of the IPCC.

Changing the data of individual years in the heating or cooling zones results in completely different climate scenarios. Ewert has collected tens of thousands of individual data for each of the 120 randomly selected stations that were reported by NASA before and after 2010 for each year. Thus, the changes in the seven climatic phases became clear. The manipulations are visible in the diagrams. Printing out his data would result in a 6 meter long list.

 

[Crick]

First link references a proven fraudulent graph as its primary evidence. Furthermore it falls into the "correlation equals causation fallacy' that all non scientific groups resort to. Which is tragic when one considers the source is NASA. Well NASA GISS, and they are known fraudsters.

Second link resorts to outright data fabrication (proven) to support its silliness.

Third link yet again resorts to cherry picking data to compile its maps.

Fourth link is mainly opinion supported by failed theory.

Fifth link is opinion.

Sixth link is opinion.

Seventh link once again resorts to the correlation equals causation logic fail.

Eighth link is a "yeah us" page.

Ninth link is the famous trenberth paper where he claims the heat is hiding in the ocean deep BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND IT!

Tenth link is once again opinion. It yet again resorts to the correlation equals causation logic fail.

Eleventh link is to our favorite comic strip writers web page which simply regurgitates the same correlation equals causation logic fails that the whole House of Cards "theory" of AGW is built upon.

In other words you base your entire belief system on proven lies, and logic fails.

GREAT JOB!

His first 8 Links are NASA.
Then a few Class Blogs like 'Popular Science.'

The Idiots on the denial side use NO Mainstream Links/Orgs.
Virtually EVERY credible Science Org on the planet agrees with GW and AGW.

And of course there are going to be "SOME" Failed predictions in the Thousands of the Huge body/Huge Consensus on AGW. Some other have been successful.

Most Deniers Got the 1998-2012 "Pause" wrong.
There was None.
The Ten Hottest Years, all 1998 -2017.
The 4 Warmest, the last 4.
Bye Clown.
`

No, they are NASA GISS. Caught multiple times faking and altering data to support their fraud. Here is the paper submitted by a German scientist where he lays out chapter and verse how GISS has been faking the data. In other words...it ain't real.


Sind die Klimadaten manipuliert?
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert hat in 36 Ländern beim Bau von 83 Talsperren beraten. Auf die Untersuchung der Felsdurchlässigkeit und die Methoden ihrer Abdichtung hat sich der Geologe spezialisiert. Genaue Messungen, präzise statistische Erhebungen waren nötig, um spätere Mängel oder gar eine Katastrophe ausschließen zu können.

Mit dieser methodischen Gründlichkeit hat er nach seiner Pensionierung begonnen, den Klimawandel zu hinterfragen. Er begann, wie im Studium gelernt die Temperaturmessungen der üblichen Warm- und Kaltphasen auszuwerten. Seit 1880 gab es schon ein weltweites Netz. Die so ermittelten Daten werden vom Goddard Institut of Space Studies (GISS) einer Abteilung der NASA verwaltet und im Internet angeboten. Von den mittlerweile 7365 Stationen liegen auswertbare Datenreihen von 1153 Stationen für die Zeit ab 1881 vor. Diese Zahlen sind auch die Grundlage, mit denen die NASA das IPCC, den sogenannten Weltklimarat beliefert. Und aus diesen öffentlich zugängigen Daten hat Ewert eine eher unglaubliche Entdeckung gemacht: Zwischen den Jahren 2010 und 2012 wurden die seit 1881 gemessenen Temperaturen massiv im Nachhinein verändert, so dass sich vor allem für den Zeitraum ab 1950 eine deutliche Klimaerwärmung ergibt, die es vorher so nicht gab.

Sind die Klimadaten manipuliert?

Loved the link...

As I speak German it wasn't a problem..

Translated:
Are the climate data manipulated?
Professor Friedrich Karl Ewert advised in 36 countries on the construction of 83 dams. The geologist specializes in investigating the permeability of rocks and the methods of sealing them. Accurate measurements, precise statistical surveys were needed to rule out later shortcomings or even a disaster.

With this methodological thoroughness, he began to question climate change after retirement. He began to evaluate the temperature measurements of the usual hot and cold phases as learned during his studies. Since 1880 there was already a worldwide network. The data thus obtained are managed by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) of a department of NASA and offered on the Internet. Of the meanwhile 7365 stations there are evaluable data series from 1153 stations for the period from 1881 onwards. These figures are also the basis by which NASA supplies the IPCC, the so-called IPCC. And from these publicly available data, Ewert has made a rather incredible discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012, the temperatures measured since 1881 were massively changed in hindsight,

It reads like a conspiracy theory, which Ewert writes in the summary of his years of Sisyphus work: Comparing the data from 2010 with those of 2012 shows, the NASA GISS has changed their own records so that we have a significant, especially since the beginning of the post-war period Global warming that does not exist.

Ewert had noticed in a report that the temperature data from Reykjavik and Godthab Nuur had been changed retrospectively. For the data from 2012, this resulted in a higher temperature rise in these Arctic stations than in the numbers before 2010. An analysis was possible because the data offered by NASA-GISS were archived before 2010 and could therefore be compared with those of after 2012 ,

Ewert randomly selected another 120 stations around the world and set to work to compare data from the years before 2010 and after 2012. And he always came to the same conclusion: The temperatures delivered from 2012 showed a higher warming, as the published until 2010. In order to be able to discover these, say, falsifications not so easy, ten different methods were used, which open only to those who has both groups of data and is not afraid to compare them before the mammoth task. One of the foundations of this work are those published by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are the published seven warming and cooling epochs, which begin in 1881 and which are based on 1097 measurement stations.

Thus, in 1881 we had a mean global temperature of 13.8 degrees Celsius, which dropped to 12.9 degrees by 1895, then rose to 14.3 degrees by 1905, dropped to below 12.9 degrees in 1920, to 13.9 in 1930 Increased to 13 degrees in 1975, increased to 14 degrees by the year 2000, and since then has cooled to 13.2 degrees by 2010. The hitherto warm year 2015 has no decisive importance on the long-term trend. It only shows that it is 1 degree warmer in 2015 than 1880, which means no turnaround for a year yet.

During this period, the CO2 concentration has increased from 3 parts in 10 000 parts of air to 4 parts without affecting the cycles of increase or decrease in temperature. As I said: These are all data of the IPCC.

Changing the data of individual years in the heating or cooling zones results in completely different climate scenarios. Ewert has collected tens of thousands of individual data for each of the 120 randomly selected stations that were reported by NASA before and after 2010 for each year. Thus, the changes in the seven climatic phases became clear. The manipulations are visible in the diagrams. Printing out his data would result in a 6 meter long list.

Billy Bob, are you claiming to have translated the original article here?

 

[Crick]

I urge those of you convinced the projections published by the IPCC to be inaccurate to read this short article from Environmental Research Letters by Rahmstorf, Foster and Cavenaze.

Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011 - IOPscience

 

[francoHFW]

First link references a proven fraudulent graph as its primary evidence. Furthermore it falls into the "correlation equals causation fallacy' that all non scientific groups resort to. Which is tragic when one considers the source is NASA. Well NASA GISS, and they are known fraudsters.

Second link resorts to outright data fabrication (proven) to support its silliness.

Third link yet again resorts to cherry picking data to compile its maps.

Fourth link is mainly opinion supported by failed theory.

Fifth link is opinion.

Sixth link is opinion.

Seventh link once again resorts to the correlation equals causation logic fail.

Eighth link is a "yeah us" page.

Ninth link is the famous trenberth paper where he claims the heat is hiding in the ocean deep BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND IT!

Tenth link is once again opinion. It yet again resorts to the correlation equals causation logic fail.

Eleventh link is to our favorite comic strip writers web page which simply regurgitates the same correlation equals causation logic fails that the whole House of Cards "theory" of AGW is built upon.

In other words you base your entire belief system on proven lies, and logic fails.

GREAT JOB!

His first 8 Links are NASA.
Then a few Class Blogs like 'Popular Science.'

The Idiots on the denial side use NO Mainstream Links/Orgs, but Jokes like WUWT like the OP.
Virtually EVERY credible Science Org on the planet agrees with GW and AGW.

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions...

And of course there are going to be "SOME" Failed predictions in the Thousands of the Huge body/Huge Consensus on AGW. Some other have been successful.

Most Deniers Got the 1998-2012 "Pause" wrong.
There was None.
The Ten Hottest Years, all 1998 -2017.
The 4 Warmest, the last 4.
Bye Conspiracy clowns
`

Lol... only progressives never heard the saying "opinions are like assholes everyone's got one".

The NFL draft was last night.... every idiot football fan has an opinion on their teams selection. They can go to Buffalo Wild Wings and raise their chicken wing high in the air and proclaim triumph. The guy could even take his team colors and starting marching around the restaurant. But if you're a Cleveland Browns fan nobody watching is going to give a shit..... because you're irrelevant. The New England Patriots fan doesn't even need to go to the bar for the draft.

The progressive parading around the banner of the consensus science might as well be a Cleveland Browns fan. They can take all the bows they, want but no one is noticing..... because they're not even getting close to the ultimate prize.

The progressive just like the Cleveland Browns fan can find much solace in these minuscule victories. But deep down they know at the end of the day they're taking their bat and ball and going home losers.( see Cap and Trade / Paris Treaty / laughable growth of renewables )

After 20 years of displaying the banner, THE SCIENCE IS DECIDED, what do progressives have to show for it? Where has all the decided science had any impact on public policy anywhere in the world? The answer is, it has not impacted dick. Outside the internet forums nobody is caring.

That is not an opinion, it is scientific fact and no it is not a conspiracy, conspiracy nut job.

Meh

I only care about who is winning s0n. Your side celebrates a billboard sign on the side of the road.

Where exactly is "well the science says...." mattering in the real world? Who is paying attention to the message? The answer is.....nobody.

Congress? Nope

The people? Nope

The governments crafting carbon reducing plans? Nope

And to think.... that's after 20 years of bomb-throwing. And still nobody is caring.

Come talk to us about being conspiracy theorists when renewable energy isn't a joke. Which means you won't be talking to us because both of us will be in our boxes a long, long time s0n!!

The bought off GOP Congress, the brainwashed GOP people? Nope, just everyone else in the world LOL....

 

[skookerasbil]

First link references a proven fraudulent graph as its primary evidence. Furthermore it falls into the "correlation equals causation fallacy' that all non scientific groups resort to. Which is tragic when one considers the source is NASA. Well NASA GISS, and they are known fraudsters.

Second link resorts to outright data fabrication (proven) to support its silliness.

Third link yet again resorts to cherry picking data to compile its maps.

Fourth link is mainly opinion supported by failed theory.

Fifth link is opinion.

Sixth link is opinion.

Seventh link once again resorts to the correlation equals causation logic fail.

Eighth link is a "yeah us" page.

Ninth link is the famous trenberth paper where he claims the heat is hiding in the ocean deep BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND IT!

Tenth link is once again opinion. It yet again resorts to the correlation equals causation logic fail.

Eleventh link is to our favorite comic strip writers web page which simply regurgitates the same correlation equals causation logic fails that the whole House of Cards "theory" of AGW is built upon.

In other words you base your entire belief system on proven lies, and logic fails.

GREAT JOB!

His first 8 Links are NASA.
Then a few Class Blogs like 'Popular Science.'

The Idiots on the denial side use NO Mainstream Links/Orgs, but Jokes like WUWT like the OP.
Virtually EVERY credible Science Org on the planet agrees with GW and AGW.

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions...

And of course there are going to be "SOME" Failed predictions in the Thousands of the Huge body/Huge Consensus on AGW. Some other have been successful.

Most Deniers Got the 1998-2012 "Pause" wrong.
There was None.
The Ten Hottest Years, all 1998 -2017.
The 4 Warmest, the last 4.
Bye Conspiracy clowns
`

Lol... only progressives never heard the saying "opinions are like assholes everyone's got one".

The NFL draft was last night.... every idiot football fan has an opinion on their teams selection. They can go to Buffalo Wild Wings and raise their chicken wing high in the air and proclaim triumph. The guy could even take his team colors and starting marching around the restaurant. But if you're a Cleveland Browns fan nobody watching is going to give a shit..... because you're irrelevant. The New England Patriots fan doesn't even need to go to the bar for the draft.

The progressive parading around the banner of the consensus science might as well be a Cleveland Browns fan. They can take all the bows they, want but no one is noticing..... because they're not even getting close to the ultimate prize.

The progressive just like the Cleveland Browns fan can find much solace in these minuscule victories. But deep down they know at the end of the day they're taking their bat and ball and going home losers.( see Cap and Trade / Paris Treaty / laughable growth of renewables )

After 20 years of displaying the banner, THE SCIENCE IS DECIDED, what do progressives have to show for it? Where has all the decided science had any impact on public policy anywhere in the world? The answer is, it has not impacted dick. Outside the internet forums nobody is caring.

That is not an opinion, it is scientific fact and no it is not a conspiracy, conspiracy nut job.

Meh

I only care about who is winning s0n. Your side celebrates a billboard sign on the side of the road.

Where exactly is "well the science says...." mattering in the real world? Who is paying attention to the message? The answer is.....nobody.

Congress? Nope

The people? Nope

The governments crafting carbon reducing plans? Nope

And to think.... that's after 20 years of bomb-throwing. And still nobody is caring.

Come talk to us about being conspiracy theorists when renewable energy isn't a joke. Which means you won't be talking to us because both of us will be in our boxes a long, long time s0n!!

The bought off GOP Congress, the brainwashed GOP people? Nope, just everyone else in the world LOL....

= the science isnt mattering!!



Your side had a couple of years after 2008 to change the landscape.....Soetero & Co. They didn't do dick.

It matters not as to why. Been saying for well over 10 years that the whole climate science debate is nothing more than group navel contemplation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

First link references a proven fraudulent graph as its primary evidence. Furthermore it falls into the "correlation equals causation fallacy' that all non scientific groups resort to. Which is tragic when one considers the source is NASA. Well NASA GISS, and they are known fraudsters.

Second link resorts to outright data fabrication (proven) to support its silliness.

Third link yet again resorts to cherry picking data to compile its maps.

Fourth link is mainly opinion supported by failed theory.

Fifth link is opinion.

Sixth link is opinion.

Seventh link once again resorts to the correlation equals causation logic fail.

Eighth link is a "yeah us" page.

Ninth link is the famous trenberth paper where he claims the heat is hiding in the ocean deep BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND IT!

Tenth link is once again opinion. It yet again resorts to the correlation equals causation logic fail.

Eleventh link is to our favorite comic strip writers web page which simply regurgitates the same correlation equals causation logic fails that the whole House of Cards "theory" of AGW is built upon.

In other words you base your entire belief system on proven lies, and logic fails.

GREAT JOB!

His first 8 Links are NASA.
Then a few Class Blogs like 'Popular Science.'

The Idiots on the denial side use NO Mainstream Links/Orgs.
Virtually EVERY credible Science Org on the planet agrees with GW and AGW.

And of course there are going to be "SOME" Failed predictions in the Thousands of the Huge body/Huge Consensus on AGW. Some other have been successful.

Most Deniers Got the 1998-2012 "Pause" wrong.
There was None.
The Ten Hottest Years, all 1998 -2017.
The 4 Warmest, the last 4.
Bye Clown.
`

No, they are NASA GISS. Caught multiple times faking and altering data to support their fraud. Here is the paper submitted by a German scientist where he lays out chapter and verse how GISS has been faking the data. In other words...it ain't real.


Sind die Klimadaten manipuliert?
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert hat in 36 Ländern beim Bau von 83 Talsperren beraten. Auf die Untersuchung der Felsdurchlässigkeit und die Methoden ihrer Abdichtung hat sich der Geologe spezialisiert. Genaue Messungen, präzise statistische Erhebungen waren nötig, um spätere Mängel oder gar eine Katastrophe ausschließen zu können.

Mit dieser methodischen Gründlichkeit hat er nach seiner Pensionierung begonnen, den Klimawandel zu hinterfragen. Er begann, wie im Studium gelernt die Temperaturmessungen der üblichen Warm- und Kaltphasen auszuwerten. Seit 1880 gab es schon ein weltweites Netz. Die so ermittelten Daten werden vom Goddard Institut of Space Studies (GISS) einer Abteilung der NASA verwaltet und im Internet angeboten. Von den mittlerweile 7365 Stationen liegen auswertbare Datenreihen von 1153 Stationen für die Zeit ab 1881 vor. Diese Zahlen sind auch die Grundlage, mit denen die NASA das IPCC, den sogenannten Weltklimarat beliefert. Und aus diesen öffentlich zugängigen Daten hat Ewert eine eher unglaubliche Entdeckung gemacht: Zwischen den Jahren 2010 und 2012 wurden die seit 1881 gemessenen Temperaturen massiv im Nachhinein verändert, so dass sich vor allem für den Zeitraum ab 1950 eine deutliche Klimaerwärmung ergibt, die es vorher so nicht gab.

Sind die Klimadaten manipuliert?

Loved the link...

As I speak German it wasn't a problem..

Translated:
Are the climate data manipulated?
Professor Friedrich Karl Ewert advised in 36 countries on the construction of 83 dams. The geologist specializes in investigating the permeability of rocks and the methods of sealing them. Accurate measurements, precise statistical surveys were needed to rule out later shortcomings or even a disaster.

With this methodological thoroughness, he began to question climate change after retirement. He began to evaluate the temperature measurements of the usual hot and cold phases as learned during his studies. Since 1880 there was already a worldwide network. The data thus obtained are managed by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) of a department of NASA and offered on the Internet. Of the meanwhile 7365 stations there are evaluable data series from 1153 stations for the period from 1881 onwards. These figures are also the basis by which NASA supplies the IPCC, the so-called IPCC. And from these publicly available data, Ewert has made a rather incredible discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012, the temperatures measured since 1881 were massively changed in hindsight,

It reads like a conspiracy theory, which Ewert writes in the summary of his years of Sisyphus work: Comparing the data from 2010 with those of 2012 shows, the NASA GISS has changed their own records so that we have a significant, especially since the beginning of the post-war period Global warming that does not exist.

Ewert had noticed in a report that the temperature data from Reykjavik and Godthab Nuur had been changed retrospectively. For the data from 2012, this resulted in a higher temperature rise in these Arctic stations than in the numbers before 2010. An analysis was possible because the data offered by NASA-GISS were archived before 2010 and could therefore be compared with those of after 2012 ,

Ewert randomly selected another 120 stations around the world and set to work to compare data from the years before 2010 and after 2012. And he always came to the same conclusion: The temperatures delivered from 2012 showed a higher warming, as the published until 2010. In order to be able to discover these, say, falsifications not so easy, ten different methods were used, which open only to those who has both groups of data and is not afraid to compare them before the mammoth task. One of the foundations of this work are those published by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are the published seven warming and cooling epochs, which begin in 1881 and which are based on 1097 measurement stations.

Thus, in 1881 we had a mean global temperature of 13.8 degrees Celsius, which dropped to 12.9 degrees by 1895, then rose to 14.3 degrees by 1905, dropped to below 12.9 degrees in 1920, to 13.9 in 1930 Increased to 13 degrees in 1975, increased to 14 degrees by the year 2000, and since then has cooled to 13.2 degrees by 2010. The hitherto warm year 2015 has no decisive importance on the long-term trend. It only shows that it is 1 degree warmer in 2015 than 1880, which means no turnaround for a year yet.

During this period, the CO2 concentration has increased from 3 parts in 10 000 parts of air to 4 parts without affecting the cycles of increase or decrease in temperature. As I said: These are all data of the IPCC.

Changing the data of individual years in the heating or cooling zones results in completely different climate scenarios. Ewert has collected tens of thousands of individual data for each of the 120 randomly selected stations that were reported by NASA before and after 2010 for each year. Thus, the changes in the seven climatic phases became clear. The manipulations are visible in the diagrams. Printing out his data would result in a 6 meter long list.

Billy Bob, are you claiming to have translated the original article here?

I made no such claim. I simply supplied the English version from their site. You would know that if you had followed the link and simply clicked on "English version"..

 

[francoHFW]

His first 8 Links are NASA.
Then a few Class Blogs like 'Popular Science.'

The Idiots on the denial side use NO Mainstream Links/Orgs, but Jokes like WUWT like the OP.
Virtually EVERY credible Science Org on the planet agrees with GW and AGW.


And of course there are going to be "SOME" Failed predictions in the Thousands of the Huge body/Huge Consensus on AGW. Some other have been successful.

Most Deniers Got the 1998-2012 "Pause" wrong.
There was None.
The Ten Hottest Years, all 1998 -2017.
The 4 Warmest, the last 4.
Bye Conspiracy clowns
`

Lol... only progressives never heard the saying "opinions are like assholes everyone's got one".

The NFL draft was last night.... every idiot football fan has an opinion on their teams selection. They can go to Buffalo Wild Wings and raise their chicken wing high in the air and proclaim triumph. The guy could even take his team colors and starting marching around the restaurant. But if you're a Cleveland Browns fan nobody watching is going to give a shit..... because you're irrelevant. The New England Patriots fan doesn't even need to go to the bar for the draft.

The progressive parading around the banner of the consensus science might as well be a Cleveland Browns fan. They can take all the bows they, want but no one is noticing..... because they're not even getting close to the ultimate prize.

The progressive just like the Cleveland Browns fan can find much solace in these minuscule victories. But deep down they know at the end of the day they're taking their bat and ball and going home losers.( see Cap and Trade / Paris Treaty / laughable growth of renewables )

After 20 years of displaying the banner, THE SCIENCE IS DECIDED, what do progressives have to show for it? Where has all the decided science had any impact on public policy anywhere in the world? The answer is, it has not impacted dick. Outside the internet forums nobody is caring.

That is not an opinion, it is scientific fact and no it is not a conspiracy, conspiracy nut job.

Meh

I only care about who is winning s0n. Your side celebrates a billboard sign on the side of the road.

Where exactly is "well the science says...." mattering in the real world? Who is paying attention to the message? The answer is.....nobody.

Congress? Nope

The people? Nope

The governments crafting carbon reducing plans? Nope

And to think.... that's after 20 years of bomb-throwing. And still nobody is caring.

Come talk to us about being conspiracy theorists when renewable energy isn't a joke. Which means you won't be talking to us because both of us will be in our boxes a long, long time s0n!!

The bought off GOP Congress, the brainwashed GOP people? Nope, just everyone else in the world LOL....

= the science isnt mattering!!



Your side had a couple of years after 2008 to change the landscape.....Soetero & Co. They didn't do dick.

It matters not as to why. Been saying for well over 10 years that the whole climate science debate is nothing more than group navel contemplation.

So you are duped to the extent that you believe Obama had two years of control, not 3 weeks in session as in reality, super dupe?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Still no challenge to the content of post #1.

But that is because they know they can't address it.

Cheers.

 

[otto105]

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions

October 30,2017

by Javier

EXCERPT:

"Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious."

LINK

Great a weather guy trying not to understand climate.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions

October 30,2017

by Javier

EXCERPT:

"Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious."

LINK

Great a weather guy trying not to understand climate.

Ha ha, YOU are another warmist who fails to challenge the well documented failures of the IPCC reports.

Javier who is a SCIENTIST, wrote the post at WUWT, you didn't even look.

You warmists are so pathetic at this.

 

[otto105]

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions

October 30,2017

by Javier

EXCERPT:

"Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious."

LINK

Great a weather guy trying not to understand climate.

Ha ha, YOU are another warmist who fails to challenge the well documented failures of the IPCC reports.

Javier who is a SCIENTIST, wrote the post at WUWT, you didn't even look.

You warmists are so pathetic at this.

Whose Javier? And why is he edited by a petrochemical guy?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions

October 30,2017

by Javier

EXCERPT:

"Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious."

LINK

Great a weather guy trying not to understand climate.

Ha ha, YOU are another warmist who fails to challenge the well documented failures of the IPCC reports.

Javier who is a SCIENTIST, wrote the post at WUWT, you didn't even look.

You warmists are so pathetic at this.

Whose Javier? And why is he edited by a petrochemical guy?

You are one confused man.

 

[otto105]

Not confused at all.

Give us your climate predictions, Andy May | HotWhopper

Chew on that denier.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Not confused at all.

Give us your climate predictions, Andy May | HotWhopper

Chew on that denier.

I can tell you didn't look in the link because it was straight off the IPCC website. Not only that the 2007 IPCC projection rate is still .30C per decade and STILL that way in the 2012 report too.It is clear you are just another warmist who can't address the well known IPCC failures, because you chose to remain ignorant.

Your link is so stupid, that I wonder YOU even read it? The article doesn't even mention RCP values at all and used the worst dataset of all in PISS. The heavily and Repeatedly adjusted dataset that erased the well known cooling trend from the 1940's to the 1970's.

The IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION of an average of .30C per decade warming rate and reach 1C by 2025, 3C by 2100. They based on the THEN existing emission scenarios, which over time is actually underrepresenting emission growth to this decade we are now in.

It has NEVER even reached .20C in ANY decade.

You are easily mislead, which usually mean you lack critical thinking skills.

 

[abu afak]

[

It has NEVER even reached .20C in ANY decade.

You are easily mislead, which usually mean you lack critical thinking skills.

:^)

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

`

 

[otto105]

Nice, sunny just got himself Bitch slapped!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Nice, sunny just got himself Bitch slapped!

No the errors are so many in her post, that I just decided to make a general statement instead.

A simple observation that clearly eludes you,

Quoting this from YOUR link:

"1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi."

I showed many times it has NEVER reached the minimum .20C per decade level and waaay behind the 1C by 2025 prediction, which is currently around. .60C behind with just 6 years and 7 months left....... ha ha ha......, not even close!

It is also massively dishonest since they completely left out the very next paragraph:

"Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO2 emissions have tracked the “Business as Usual” scenario. An interesting discussion of the 1990 FAR report warming predictions and an analysis of them through April of 2015 can be seen here. A list of official warming rates from various datasets and for various time spans can be seen here."

Have you looked at the 2007 IPCC report per decade warming rate projection?

Snicker..................................................​

You need to stop making a fool of yourself on this, as I am barely scratching the surface.

 

[Crick]

[

It has NEVER even reached .20C in ANY decade.

You are easily mislead, which usually mean you lack critical thinking skills.

:^)

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

`

The captioning text that goes with this Bitch slapping graphic

Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2017, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS.

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies - Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with base period 1951-1980. The solid black line is the global annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year lowess smooth, i.e. a nonparametric regression analysis that relies on a k-nearest-neighbor model. The function is evaluated using a fraction of data corresponding to a ten year window of data, giving an effective smoothing of approximately five years. The blue uncertainty bars (95% confidence limit) account only for incomplete spatial sampling. This is based upon Fig. 1A in Hansen et al. (2006) and Fig. 9a in Hansen et al. (2010). The graph shows an overall long-term warming trend.