Thirty Years Of Failed Climate Predictions

[SSDD]

In this day and age, when you have much evidence, Republicans still believe climate change is a hoax.

Take a look at this picture:

Galveston, TX

Republicans don't see a mess. They look at this picture and wonder what the problem is.

I see a terrible problem...I see pollution...I see evidence of neglect...I look around and see all sorts of real environmental problems that have real solutions...then I see billions upon billions upon billions being flushed down the toilet on the climate change non issue... In the past several decades, almost a trillion dollars has been spent on climate change....can you point to a single thing that all that money has made better?

Had just a small percentage of that money been spent in Galveston, what might that area in your picture look like now...what other good could have been done with nearly a trillion dollars? Instead it has been flushed...lost forever...wasted on a non issue...and environmental issues like the one above...and even worse issues are not going to be addressed so long as the climate change scam is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

 

[cnm]

Another graph shown in terms of temperature anomalies....here..have a look at the same data presented in terms of actual temperature[...]

Note how they confirm the temperature increase prediction.

 

[SSDD]

All I know is in the last thirty years, more people, 7 billion more. I have to pay more for water, because it's gotten warmer and dryer. it's a fact, Sometimes it is cooler, sometimes it warmer. but in the last 30 years, I pay on average more for water and electricity for climate control. If I paid more to remove water or warm up my place, I would say so.

What you pay is a product of economics...not the climate..things cost more now than they did years ago....if you are 60, then you can probably remember going to the store and buying a coke and a little paper bag full of penny candy for a dime...do you think your coke now costs a dollar because the temperature has increased by a fraction of a degree? ...electricity costs more...water costs more and much of the additional cost is due to taxes imposed on the utilities in the name of the non existent climate change issue...

And how old are you? Just wondering. Seems you are wiser than your years.

Im within spitting distance of 72

I respect my elders. I am 63 as of the 23rd. I cant take someone seriously if they don't notice the climate change/ human connection . Are you living in a cave or something?

No...I live out in the world...and I take the time to look at the climate history of wherever I happen to be in the world...and when you look at the history, you see that change is business as usual on this rock. Here...have another look at the graph of the northern hemisphere shown in terms of temperature, rather than anomalies... Do you really believe you can detect such a small change from year to year? As you can see, the 30s and 40s were as warm as it is now.

What general region do you live in...I would be happy to provide you with a pretty complete history of the climate wherever you happen to be just so you can see that we tend to color history a good bit more than we usually care to admit...I know that I suffer from the old guy's disease...the older I get, the better I was...my grandkids call me on that one all the time...and don't call me an elder...I get along pretty well for an old guy...I come from a family of long livers...I was about your age when I lost my last grandmother...104 and still sharp as a tack...my mom is 93 and still walks the mall 3 days a week...

 

[SSDD]

Another graph shown in terms of temperature anomalies....here..have a look at the same data presented in terms of actual temperature[...]

Note how they confirm the temperature increase prediction.

No one said that it isn't getting a bit warmer...that is to be expected when a planet exits an ice age...it has all happened over and over before...there is nothing to be alarmed about though...now if it were cooling, that is cause for alarm...cold is a killer, not warmth...

 

[rightwinger]

Another graph shown in terms of temperature anomalies....here..have a look at the same data presented in terms of actual temperature[...]

Note how they confirm the temperature increase prediction.

No one said that it isn't getting a bit warmer...that is to be expected when a planet exits an ice age...it has all happened over and over before...there is nothing to be alarmed about though...now if it were cooling, that is cause for alarm...cold is a killer, not warmth...

Move along, nothing to see here

Drill, baby drill

 

[skookerasbil]

30 years of ghey

 

[deanrd]

In this day and age, when you have much evidence, Republicans still believe climate change is a hoax.

Take a look at this picture:

Galveston, TX

Republicans don't see a mess. They look at this picture and wonder what the problem is.

I see a terrible problem...I see pollution...I see evidence of neglect...I look around and see all sorts of real environmental problems that have real solutions...then I see billions upon billions upon billions being flushed down the toilet on the climate change non issue... In the past several decades, almost a trillion dollars has been spent on climate change....can you point to a single thing that all that money has made better?

Had just a small percentage of that money been spent in Galveston, what might that area in your picture look like now...what other good could have been done with nearly a trillion dollars? Instead it has been flushed...lost forever...wasted on a non issue...and environmental issues like the one above...and even worse issues are not going to be addressed so long as the climate change scam is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

Thank you for proving my point.

Climate change is the result of pollution. This person sees pollution and insists, with a bottle of spot remover and a little elbow they can fix the problem. All they have to do is pick up the trash and put it in it's proper place. How small. That's all I can say. How small.

 

[deanrd]

30 years of ghey

Don't you ever wonder what you are fighting for?

 

[Dale Smith]

In this day and age, when you have much evidence, Republicans still believe climate change is a hoax.

Take a look at this picture:

Galveston, TX

Republicans don't see a mess. They look at this picture and wonder what the problem is.

I see a terrible problem...I see pollution...I see evidence of neglect...I look around and see all sorts of real environmental problems that have real solutions...then I see billions upon billions upon billions being flushed down the toilet on the climate change non issue... In the past several decades, almost a trillion dollars has been spent on climate change....can you point to a single thing that all that money has made better?

Had just a small percentage of that money been spent in Galveston, what might that area in your picture look like now...what other good could have been done with nearly a trillion dollars? Instead it has been flushed...lost forever...wasted on a non issue...and environmental issues like the one above...and even worse issues are not going to be addressed so long as the climate change scam is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

Thank you for proving my point.

Climate change is the result of pollution. This person sees pollution and insists, with a bottle of spot remover and a little elbow they can fix the problem. All they have to do is pick up the trash and put it in it's proper place. How small. That's all I can say. How small.

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

With man’s industrial fortunes fingered as the driver of eco-destructive population growth, it was inevitable that ‘Science’ would be called upon to act as judge, jury and executioner. However, as it turned out, the science of global warming was butchered, tortured and corrupted to prove a hypothesis, rather than to perform objective science.

James Delingpole of The Telegraph elaborates :

The reason I have become so obsessed with “global warming” in the last few years is not because I’m particularly interested in the “how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin” non-argument which hysterical sites like RealClimate and bloggers like Joe Romm are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine. It’s because unlike some I’ve read widely enough to see the bigger picture.

One thing I’ve learned in this wide reading is how obsessed so many of the key thinkers in the green movement are with the notion of “overpopulation.” As one of their favourite think tanks, the Club of Rome, puts it: “Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.” This belief explains, inter alia, why the “science” behind AGW is so dodgy: because the science didn’t come first. What came first was the notion that mankind was a problem and was doing harm to the planet. The “science” was then simply tortured until it fitted in with this notion.

 

[Dale Smith]

The UN is using climate change as a tool not an issue
By Maurice Newman

It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.

We have been subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years.

In January 1970, Life magazine, based on “solid scientific evidence”, claimed that by 1985 air pollution would reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth by half. In fact, across that period sunlight fell by between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a 1971 speech, Paul Ehrlich said: “If I were a gambler I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

Fast forward to March 2000 and David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, told The Independent, “Snowfalls are now a thing of the past.” In December 2010, the Mail Online reported, “Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain”.

We’ve had our own busted predictions. Perhaps the most preposterous was climate alarmist Tim Flannery’s 2005 observation: “If the computer records are right, these drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia.” Subsequent rainfall and severe flooding have shown the records or his analysis are wrong. We’ve swallowed dud prediction after dud prediction. What’s more, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we were instructed was the gold standard on global warming, has been exposed repeatedly for misrepresentation and shoddy methods.

Weather bureaus appear to have “homogenised” data to suit narratives. NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline.

Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?

In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.

Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or disagreement.

Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers. As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the (climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

 

[leftwinger]

Explain the Ice Ages came and went before Cars, before electricity. Glaciers down in Missouri. Natural cycles caused by the Sun? Or Volcanic eruptions? Meteorite impacting Earth?

 

[cnm]

No one said that it isn't getting a bit warmer

Yeah? You should have heard the squeals of denial during 'the pause'.

 

[SSDD]

Another graph shown in terms of temperature anomalies....here..have a look at the same data presented in terms of actual temperature[...]

Note how they confirm the temperature increase prediction.

No one said that it isn't getting a bit warmer...that is to be expected when a planet exits an ice age...it has all happened over and over before...there is nothing to be alarmed about though...now if it were cooling, that is cause for alarm...cold is a killer, not warmth...

Move along, nothing to see here

Drill, baby drill

Once again...can you provide a single piece...not proof...not overwhelming evidence...not a mountain of evidence, but a SINGLE PIECE of observed, measured evidence which favors the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability? My bet is that you can't....I have been looking for and asking for such a piece of evidence for decades now...nothing.

So since there is no actual observed, measured evidence which suggests that what bit of climate change we have seen is anything other than natural variability...yes...there is not much to see here other than nature at work...if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, lets see it.

 

[SSDD]

In this day and age, when you have much evidence, Republicans still believe climate change is a hoax.

Take a look at this picture:

Galveston, TX

Republicans don't see a mess. They look at this picture and wonder what the problem is.

I see a terrible problem...I see pollution...I see evidence of neglect...I look around and see all sorts of real environmental problems that have real solutions...then I see billions upon billions upon billions being flushed down the toilet on the climate change non issue... In the past several decades, almost a trillion dollars has been spent on climate change....can you point to a single thing that all that money has made better?

Had just a small percentage of that money been spent in Galveston, what might that area in your picture look like now...what other good could have been done with nearly a trillion dollars? Instead it has been flushed...lost forever...wasted on a non issue...and environmental issues like the one above...and even worse issues are not going to be addressed so long as the climate change scam is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

Thank you for proving my point.

Climate change is the result of pollution. This person sees pollution and insists, with a bottle of spot remover and a little elbow they can fix the problem. All they have to do is pick up the trash and put it in it's proper place. How small. That's all I can say. How small.

Climate change is the result of nature doing what nature does...pollution is the result of neglect, carelessness, attempts to bypass the rules...the two are very different issues and quite unrelated... But do explain how you believe climate change is the result of pollution and provide at least some real evidence to support your belief.

 

[SSDD]

30 years of ghey

Don't you ever wonder what you are fighting for?

You have truly partook of the kook aid...your priorities are to create a socialist hell in which no one except for a few super rich elites can enjoy the fruits of their labors...the rest share in the equal misery socialism provides...

And much of what you conflate as rights are no such thing....little use in arguing with you though...you are clearly a believer who has no rational thinking skills...

 

[SSDD]

No one said that it isn't getting a bit warmer

Yeah? You should have heard the squeals of denial during 'the pause'.

The pause is very real...were it not, climate science would not have came up with nearly 70 excuses in an attempt to explain why they didn't predict it...The only squealing was from climate science....trying to explain it away.. There were some real doozies offered up..

Low solar activity....one of my favorites was that the oceans ate the warming.....chinese coal use...the Montreal Protocol....volcanic aerosols....stratospheric water vapor....faster pacific trade winds...stadium waves......coincidence....pine aerosols.....no more than natural variability....scientists looking at the wrong data...we forgot to cherry pick the models in tune with natural variability....negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.....AMOC ocean oscillation...global "brightening" has stopped...attempts to hid the pause by using decadal averages...not enough el ninos....wrong type of El Ninos...slower trade winds....climate less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought...PDO and AMO natural cycles....ENSO....solar cycle driven changes...NAO & PDO....the models explain the pause..here is a good one...as soon as the sun, the weather, and volcanoes, and all other natural factors allow, the world will start warming again...trenberths missing heat....delayed rebound from 1991 mount pinatubo eruption...internal variability....ocean variability...no theory that fits the data...not enough data on natural climate cycles to determine if the pause is natural....and on and on and on....the only honest one of the bunch was "we just don't know"...

The pause continues...but the ever changing excuses have pretty much stopped...you can only make so many excuses for a thing before you really start to just look stupid...apparently, climate science figured that number was somewhere in the mid sixties...

You people never fail to inject a bit of humor into my days...to bad it is at the expense of your own mental well being...the lies you must tell yourselves in order to believe what you do...tragic...simply tragic.

 

[xband]

Explain the Ice Ages came and went before Cars, before electricity. Glaciers down in Missouri. Natural cycles caused by the Sun? Or Volcanic eruptions? Meteorite impacting Earth?

Maeander Minimum and Central Ohio is experiencing yet another brutal and epic winter. edit: Maeander Minimum has caused little ice ages in the past and is a long term sun spot cycle and why I am buying a new Jeep.

 

[rightwinger]

Explain the Ice Ages came and went before Cars, before electricity. Glaciers down in Missouri. Natural cycles caused by the Sun? Or Volcanic eruptions? Meteorite impacting Earth?

The ice age progressed over thousands of years

We are seeing an acceleration of climate change in just a hundred years and we know why

 

[SSDD]

Explain the Ice Ages came and went before Cars, before electricity. Glaciers down in Missouri. Natural cycles caused by the Sun? Or Volcanic eruptions? Meteorite impacting Earth?

The ice age progressed over thousands of years

We are seeing an acceleration of climate change in just a hundred years and we know why

Really? Climate science says that it has warmed by about a degree in the past 100 years...the margin of error for that claim is about half a degree... Here...have a look at this gold standard (according to climate science) temperature reconstruction of the past 10,000 years...there are numerous points along that time line where the temperature increased a great deal more, and faster than the bit of change we have seen...for example, about 8300 years ago the temperature increased 3.5 degrees in a couple of hundred years...The fact is that the change we are seeing is so far within the boundaries of natural variability, that we can't even see the borders from here...

 

[Pilot1]

All the politicians and government bureaucrats want is another huge slush fund to plunder and buy votes and grow government. Climate change is just the latest vehicle.