Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Everyone already know you like to use fraudulent charts, so there's not need to tell us again.Yes, we are shaking in our boots.
You mean you aren't aware that the IPCC is aware that the models are running too hot?Everyone already know you like to use fraudulent charts, so there's not need to tell us again.
Deniers trying to out-fraud each other are like jihadists all competing to see who can scream "ALLAHU AHKBAR!" the loudest. They don't do it to impress outsiders. They do it to show the other cultists how loyal to the cult they are.
Again, no need to double down on the fraud. You credentials as a fraud have been proven.You mean you aren't aware that the IPCC is aware that the models are running too hot?
A quick glance shows that it's incorrect. It says it uses ERSSTv5, which is an ocean temperature database, but then it compares that to models for global temperature, both sea and land. Apples vs. oranges. The land is warming faster than the oceans, so of course ocean temperatures rise slower than the combined ocean/land models.Are seriously trying to argue this graph is incorrect?
Post what you believe is the correct graph. Until then you are full of shit.Again, no need to double down on the fraud. You credentials as a fraud have been proven.
A quick glance shows that it's incorrect. It says it uses ERSSTv5, which is an ocean temperature database, but then it compares that to models for global temperature, both sea and land. Apples vs. oranges. The land is warming faster than the oceans, so of course ocean temperatures rise slower than the combined ocean/land models.
So did you push the fraud due to stupidity, or was your fraud intentional?
why we need to remove 90% of ALL passenger vehicles from the roads,
As is the case every time, no problem. I can always back up what I say. That's why I trigger you so badly.Post what you believe is the correct graph.
www.realclimate.org
And zero scientific institutions that don't believe.And there are billions that don't believe.
Do you have any idea how ironic your statement is? This coming from the person disagreeing with every scientific institution on Earth.Science isn't about belief ... why do you think pediatricians understand fluid mechanics? ... do you get child health advice from meteorologists?
I refuse to have a science debate with Popeye. Neither of us is even qualified. We're all ignorant compared to actual climate scientists. We might as well have a debate about neuroscience.I knew you were a loser, can't back up your internet tough guy role huh?
The pollution is mostly from cars ... places like India and China don't require much pollution control so their cars spew toxic fumes ...
You know the best part of this clown show? Most of the information they try to distort for their ends was collected by scientists that believe AGW is happening. They take work done by scientists and then distort it to contradict them on what it means. The arrogance is boundless.Again, no need to double down on the fraud. You credentials as a fraud have been proven.
A quick glance shows that it's incorrect. It says it uses ERSSTv5, which is an ocean temperature database, but then it compares that to models for global temperature, both sea and land. Apples vs. oranges. The land is warming faster than the oceans, so of course ocean temperatures rise slower than the combined ocean/land models.
So did you push the fraud due to stupidity, or was your fraud intentional?
Let's look at all the models instead of just the cherry picked ones. And instead of your apples to oranges comparison, let's actually look at CMIP6 models instead of your CMIP5 models which are out of date. Which by the way CMIP5 still shows models running hot. And I noticed you didn't provide a link either.As is the case every time, no problem. I can always back up what I say. That's why I trigger you so badly.
RealClimate: Climate model projections compared to observations
RealClimate: Since we have been periodically posting updates (e.g. 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 etc.) of model output comparisons to observations across a range of variables, we have now set up this page as a permanent placeholder for the most up-to-date comparisons. We include surface...
Note how the models seem to be running hot ... by about 10%. That is, they've been very, very good. If someone told you otherwise, they lied to your face.
What you do about that is up to you. You could ask those people why they lied to you. Or you could drop to your knees, lick their boots, and beg for more lies.
We all know you'll choose the latter option.
"..These coordinated efforts are part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects (CMIP). The 2013 IPCC fifth assessment report (AR5) featured climate models from CMIP5, while the upcoming 2021 IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6) will feature new state-of-the-art CMIP6 models..."What you do about that is up to you. You could ask those people why they lied to you. Or you could drop to your knees, lick their boots, and beg for more lies.
We all know you'll choose the latter option.
www.carbonbrief.org
I think what was sad was you getting extremely easy-to-find information completely wrong, apparently from a strongly held bias against Asians.
You are free to remove 100% of YOUR cars from the road... keep you hands off my car.
View attachment 765469
I wouldn't believe Zero Hedge if they told me the sun came up this morning.
I drove 150 miles total in February ... so I filled up the gas tank to "freshen" up the material ... it does go stale after awhile ...
How many miles did you drive in February? ... do you even know? ... I assume you're Middle Class and don't track mileage ... so what you gonna do if The Rich come and take your rig? ... you can try holding your breath until you turn blue, but I don't think it'll work ...
I used to run a 400 HP 12:1 compression engine with a 3/4 cam whose exhaust was straight headers into blown out glass packs with no exhaust pipes to the rear that laid tire between shifts and it didn't spew toxic fumes.
Just a little hard to shut off sometimes, the engine would keep running with the key off and the tranny in gear due to dieseling.
You're not even worthy of true engagement on this issue. Have a nice day.
Laughable. Progressives think the # impressive. Nobody else does.
