Ten Major Failures of So-called Consensus Climate Science

IanC

Gold Member
Sep 22, 2009
11,061
1,344
245
In the attached analysis we take a look at the IPCC based science. We are going to ignore all the many ‘gates’ that were uncovered like the Himalayan glaciers, Amazon rain forests, how many real scientists there were who authored the key summaries and all the issues as to whether the summaries truly reflected the scientific information in the chapters and despite claims to the contrary, how a significant percentage of citations were not peer reviewed.


We will not attempt to address the issues of sensitivity for CO2 or solar and cloud and water vapor feedbacks relative to the models. We will also ignore the many model shortcomings – like inability to forecast regional patterns, ocean oscillations, etc. Each of these alone discredit the consensus ‘settled science claim.

We will focus on how actual data compares to the consensus science, model based virtual world view of climate.

We will look at some of the major findings, assessments or model predictions from the IPCC and other national climate centers and NGOs, that we believe have failed and let you decide then whether or not the their science and model projections should be the bedrock onto which we build public policy.

The ten issues:

1. Warming is said to be unprecedented and accelerating. It is neither.

2. Global warming is not GLOBAL

3. Winters would grow increasingly warm

4. The entire Northern Hemisphere would experience less snow and snowcover

5. The arctic oscillation (AO) would become increasingly positive, aiding in the warming

6. Global warming would lead to a permanent or semi-permanent El Nino

7. Atmosphere will warm faster than surface (because that is where the heat trapping gases are).

8. Record highs and heat waves are increasing

9. Sea levels are rising at an increasing, alarming rate

10. Droughts and floods will worsen
Ten Major Failures of So-called Consensus Climate Science | Watts Up With That?

or just the links to the pdf s presented to US congress sub-committee on Energy and Commerce Committee

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_1.pdf

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_II.pdf
 
Last edited:
You expect the Priests of the religion of Global warming to care how often you disprove their idiocy? You expect the blindly faithful following on this board to care?
 
You expect the Priests of the religion of Global warming to care how often you disprove their idiocy? You expect the blindly faithful following on this board to care?

hahaha, no i certainly do not. but I do want people to know that Congress IS getting some sane advice on Global Warming. and it is also encouraging to those who think AGW might be exaggerated but don't know how flimsy the evidence is.
 
Sure. Sane advice from undegreed an ex-TV weatherman that has been repeatedly caught in lies. From a pretend English Lord with no science degree. From some degreed professors here that also testified previously as to the harmlessness of tobacco. A real cast of professionals there, Ian.

As for your list, just look at number 10. Think Pakistan and Australia. Then China and Sri Lanka. Russia. Could be a random clustering. Pretty far outside the curve, however. As for the rest, the seas are rising, the ice is melting, and the global temperature continues to rise.
 
Sure. Sane advice from undegreed an ex-TV weatherman that has been repeatedly caught in lies. From a pretend English Lord with no science degree. From some degreed professors here that also testified previously as to the harmlessness of tobacco. A real cast of professionals there, Ian.

As for your list, just look at number 10. Think Pakistan and Australia. Then China and Sri Lanka. Russia. Could be a random clustering. Pretty far outside the curve, however. As for the rest, the seas are rising, the ice is melting, and the global temperature continues to rise.


It must really piss you off that D'Aleo only used data from NOAA and affiliated sites, huh?

as usual you splutter and throw out ad hominems.

do you have some factual complaint with #10 or did you just want to erroneously use weather as proof of global warming again? do you have some evidence that it wasnt weather?
 

Forum List

Back
Top