Climate Science -- Fifty Years of Getting Everything Right

[CrusaderFrank]

France - Top French weatherman 'sacked' over climate change book
Les Inrocks - Qui est Philippe Verdier, le chef du service météo de France TV climato-sceptique?

The controversy around Verdier’s claims has likely been heightened by their timing, with his book coming just weeks before the start of a much-anticipated UN climate change summit, known as COP21, to be held in Paris at the end of November.

"I put myself in the path of COP21, which is a bulldozer, and this is the result,” Verdier told RTL radio station in October.

He said he was inspired to write the book after France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius met with TV meteorologists and asked them to highlight climate change issues in their broadcasts.

“I was horrified by this speech,” Verdier told French magazine Les Inrockuptibles last month.

In his book, Verdier accuses state-funded climate change scientists of having been “manipulated” and “politicised”, even accusing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of publishing deliberately misleading data.

France's top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change
According to Mr Verdier, top climate scientists, who often rely on state funding, have been “manipulated and politicised”.

He specifically challenges the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, saying they “blatantly erased” data that went against their overall conclusions, and casts doubt on the accuracy of their climate models.

The IPCC has said that temperatures could rise by up to 4.8°C if no action is taken to reduce carbon emissions.

Mr Verdier writes: “We are undoubtedly on a plateau in terms of warming and the cyclical variability of the climate doesn’t not allow us to envisage if the natural rhythm will tomorrow lead us towards a fall, a stagnation or a rise (in temperature).”
............
And another receives the wrath of those in on the scheme. I love how the prime minister met with them to tell them to talk up climate change. I also note how he sees the cherry picking of data, as well.

The religion shall not be questioned! Heretic! /sarc

This is SOP for the ;left wing control mongers as well. Anything and any one that stand in their way to take all power and enslave people shall be dealt with harshly...

Or as some here like Crick likes to say "hypothetically....kill them..."

I'll give you a few minutes to either correct that quote or remove the quote marks before I report you for misquoting me.

Here's what the psychopath actually said, "Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers."

 

[Billy_Bob]

France - Top French weatherman 'sacked' over climate change book
Les Inrocks - Qui est Philippe Verdier, le chef du service météo de France TV climato-sceptique?

The controversy around Verdier’s claims has likely been heightened by their timing, with his book coming just weeks before the start of a much-anticipated UN climate change summit, known as COP21, to be held in Paris at the end of November.

"I put myself in the path of COP21, which is a bulldozer, and this is the result,” Verdier told RTL radio station in October.

He said he was inspired to write the book after France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius met with TV meteorologists and asked them to highlight climate change issues in their broadcasts.

“I was horrified by this speech,” Verdier told French magazine Les Inrockuptibles last month.

In his book, Verdier accuses state-funded climate change scientists of having been “manipulated” and “politicised”, even accusing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of publishing deliberately misleading data.

France's top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change
According to Mr Verdier, top climate scientists, who often rely on state funding, have been “manipulated and politicised”.

He specifically challenges the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, saying they “blatantly erased” data that went against their overall conclusions, and casts doubt on the accuracy of their climate models.

The IPCC has said that temperatures could rise by up to 4.8°C if no action is taken to reduce carbon emissions.

Mr Verdier writes: “We are undoubtedly on a plateau in terms of warming and the cyclical variability of the climate doesn’t not allow us to envisage if the natural rhythm will tomorrow lead us towards a fall, a stagnation or a rise (in temperature).”
............
And another receives the wrath of those in on the scheme. I love how the prime minister met with them to tell them to talk up climate change. I also note how he sees the cherry picking of data, as well.

The religion shall not be questioned! Heretic! /sarc

This is SOP for the ;left wing control mongers as well. Anything and any one that stand in their way to take all power and enslave people shall be dealt with harshly...

Or as some here like Crick likes to say "hypothetically....kill them..."

I'll give you a few minutes to either correct that quote or remove the quote marks before I report you for misquoting me.

Here's what the psychopath actually said, "Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers."

My Bad... I will have to make note of that for future reference.. But it makes little difference in distinction.

 

[RollingThunder]

Wrong. You ignore the facts. You don't care enough to research that 97% was 75 of 77 that answered out of thousands they surveyed.

That's the lie your puppetmasters fed you, but it is utterly bogus.

Why can't you face the facts?

(source)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The satellites and the climate both reject manmade global warming

 

[jc456]

The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

Read more: 25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

Spot on!

He is quite right about that.

He didn't say that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels" would happen by the year 2000, BTW you moron, he said that that would happen at some point in the future "if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000". He may have been correct. Dely in dealing with this crisis is very probably dooming those islands because of what may well be at this point an inevitable rise in sea levels because CO2 emissions have continued to increase despite the clear warnings from the world scientific community decades ago.

From that article......"He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human.." I ain't purchasing the report. But it's clear the window he was referencing was 2000.

 

[jc456]

The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

Read more: 25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

Spot on!

He is quite right about that.

He didn't say that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels" would happen by the year 2000, BTW you moron, he said that that would happen at some point in the future "if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000". He may have been correct. Dely in dealing with this crisis is very probably dooming those islands because of what may well be at this point an inevitable rise in sea levels because CO2 emissions have continued to increase despite the clear warnings from the world scientific community decades ago.

Problem is s0n....as Frank astutely points out...........the AGW k00ks have been promising all kinds of calamities for decades and none of the shit ends up happening!!! That's why after 2008, everybody stopped caring about global warming. Progressives always find a way to blast their collective faces off when they start winning ( back in 2005).......they went hard core with a billion future predictions most of which fell flat on their faces.
Almost every single person who ran on the climate change platform in the most recent mid-term election got their clocks cleaned..........and Im still laughing a year later!!!
Climate Change Activists Come Up Short In Midterm Elections

Your usual insane nonsense....totally meaningless....

In the real world....

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SERIES ON EXTREME WEATHER, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND THE RISKS WE FACE

Scientific American published a three-part series authored by award-winning science journalist John Carey and commissioned by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change that reports on the link between extreme weather and climate change.

The series details the impacts of extreme weather events, the science behind extreme weather and global warming, and the risks and how to respond to the increase in extreme weather. Through enterprising reporting, this series provides an in-depth and accessible account of extreme weather affecting communities across America, why it’s happening, and what can be done about it.

Part One - Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change
More violent and frequent storms, once merely a prediction of climate models, are now a matter of observation.

In North Dakota the waters kept rising. Swollen by more than a month of record rains in Saskatchewan, the Souris River topped its all time record high, set back in 1881. The floodwaters poured into Minot, North Dakota's fourth-largest city, and spread across thousands of acres of farms and forests. More than 12,000 people were forced to evacuate. Many lost their homes to the floodwaters.Read more.

Part Two - Global Warming and the Science of Extreme Weather
How rising temperatures change weather and produce fiercer, more frequent storms.

Extreme floods, prolonged droughts, searing heat waves, massive rainstorms and the like don't just seem like they've become the new normal in the last few years—they have become more common, according to data collected by reinsurance company Munich Re. But has this increase resulted from human-caused climate change or just from natural climatic variations? After all, recorded floods and droughts go back to the earliest days of mankind, before coal, oil and natural gas made the modern industrial world possible. Read more.

Part Three - Our Extreme Future: Predicting and Coping with a Changing Climate
Adapting to extreme weather calls for a combination of restoring wetland and building drains and sewers that can handle the water. But leaders and the public are slow to catch on.

Extreme weather events have become both more common and more intense. And increasingly, scientists have been able to pin at least part of the blame on humankind's alteration of the climate. What's more, the growing success of this nascent science of climate attribution (finding the telltale fingerprints of climate change in extreme events) means that researchers have more confidence in their climate models—which predict that the future will be even more extreme. Read more.

so dude, what is extreme weather? Are you saying there has never been extreme weather before 1980? I'm sorry, but that shit doesn't carry any logic in it.

 

[Vigilante]

I just love it when a little Meme blows the shit out of the OP's bullshit, don't you?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wrong. You ignore the facts. You don't care enough to research that 97% was 75 of 77 that answered out of thousands they surveyed.

That's the lie your puppetmasters fed you, but it is utterly bogus.

Why can't you face the facts?

(source)

BWHAAAAAAA.... COOK Et Al......

Fabricated and outright lies by Cook... Hell the little bastard even went so far as to make fake reviewer credentials to bolster his own credibility...

Dam Son... You need some new material!

 

[Crick]

Wrong. You ignore the facts. You don't care enough to research that 97% was 75 of 77 that answered out of thousands they surveyed.

That's the lie your puppetmasters fed you, but it is utterly bogus.

Why can't you face the facts?

(source)

BWHAAAAAAA.... COOK Et Al......

Fabricated and outright lies by Cook... Hell the little bastard even went so far as to make fake reviewer credentials to bolster his own credibility...

Dam Son... You need some new material!

You're the one pushing lies, Billy. The consensus is now nearly unanimous and quite real.

 

[jc456]

Wrong. You ignore the facts. You don't care enough to research that 97% was 75 of 77 that answered out of thousands they surveyed.

That's the lie your puppetmasters fed you, but it is utterly bogus.

Why can't you face the facts?


(source)

BWHAAAAAAA.... COOK Et Al......

Fabricated and outright lies by Cook... Hell the little bastard even went so far as to make fake reviewer credentials to bolster his own credibility...

Dam Son... You need some new material!

You're the one pushing lies, Billy. The consensus is now nearly unanimous and quite real.

What lies is Billy pushing?

In fifty years the predictions haven't gotten anything right. So, what is the lie? Come now cricketer, speak your mind already, let's hear the lie shout it from the mountain tops.

 

[mamooth]

Here's what the psychopath actually said, "Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers."

It's a particular despicable lie by Frank there to pretend that wasn't satire, a response to a denier calling for exterminations of their enemies.

Frank knows that. He's just pathologically dishonest, like so many other deniers.

And I thank him for the further demonstration of my point, which is that deniers now have to flat out lie about everything in order to pretend the science hasn't been getting everything right for 50 years now. They still haven't been able to show a single wrong prediction, despite being prompted over and over. They whine that the predictions are wrong, but they can't ever back up their bullshit.

 

[jc456]

Here's what the psychopath actually said, "Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers."

It's a particular despicable lie by Frank there to pretend that wasn't satire, a response to a denier calling for exterminations of their enemies.

Frank knows that. He's just pathologically dishonest, like so many other deniers.

And I thank him for the further demonstration of my point, which is that deniers now have to flat out lie about everything in order to pretend the science hasn't been getting everything right for 50 years now. They still haven't been able to show a single wrong prediction, despite being prompted over and over. They whine that the predictions are wrong, but they can't ever back up their bullshit.

But he is accurate with that, correct? It is what was written, right?

In other words, it was in the posters post.

Fifty years or not.

 

[RollingThunder]

The satellites and the climate both reject manmade global warming

A particularly demented and fraudulent denier cult myth that the bamboozled denier cult dimwits hold onto like grim death no matter how many times it is debunked.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's what the psychopath actually said, "Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers."

It's a particular despicable lie by Frank there to pretend that wasn't satire, a response to a denier calling for exterminations of their enemies.

Frank knows that. He's just pathologically dishonest, like so many other deniers.

And I thank him for the further demonstration of my point, which is that deniers now have to flat out lie about everything in order to pretend the science hasn't been getting everything right for 50 years now. They still haven't been able to show a single wrong prediction, despite being prompted over and over. They whine that the predictions are wrong, but they can't ever back up their bullshit.

Satire? It's like Ted Bundy joking, "Hey does your drink taste like roofalin?"

Like you, Crick is a pathological liar; he's also a complete sociopath

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The satellites and the climate both reject manmade global warming

A particularly demented and fraudulent denier cult myth that the bamboozled denier cult dimwits hold onto like grim death no matter how many times it is debunked.

Once again, chart shows no warming since 1995

 

[RollingThunder]

That's the lie your puppetmasters fed you, but it is utterly bogus.

Why can't you face the facts?

(source)

BWHAAAAAAA.... COOK Et Al......

Fabricated and outright lies by Cook... Hell the little bastard even went so far as to make fake reviewer credentials to bolster his own credibility...

Dam Son... You need some new material!

And ol' BillyBoobjob demonstrates his stupidity and blindness once again.

No, little retard, not John Cook, who BTW, is a respected published scientist.....

These graphics are from Dr. James Powell, just as it says very clearly on the graph, or just as you would know if you weren't too stupid to click on the link labeled "source".

And who is Dr. Powell?

James Lawrence Powell
Bio

I was born in Berea, Kentucky and graduated from Berea College with a degree in Geology.

I hold a Ph.D. in Geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several honorary degrees, including Doctor of Science degrees from Berea College and from Oberlin College. I taught Geology at Oberlin College for over 20 year.

I served as Acting President of Oberlin, President of Franklin and Marshall College, President of Reed College, President of the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, and President and Director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.

President Reagan and later, President George H. W. Bush, appointed me to the National Science Board, where I served for 12 years. Asteroid 1987 SH7 is named for me.

I have written eleven books, the most recent of which is Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences: From Heresy to Truth, published by Columbia University Press. In 2015 I was elected a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).

I am Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium.

 

[jc456]

The satellites and the climate both reject manmade global warming

A particularly demented and fraudulent denier cult myth that the bamboozled denier cult dimwits hold onto like grim death no matter how many times it is debunked.

Once again, chart shows no warming since 1995

funny stuff eh? he posts up this chart with a line going up, yet the years we're talking about, going down. You can't make this stuff up can you?

I know it ain't fifty years, but it is what we've always stated since 1998. but he's a fk and doesn't ever concede his error.

 

[Kosh]

It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science, the first report to a president about it, this 1965 report to President Johnson on global warming and other topics, by all the big names in the field at that time.

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira downloads/PSAC, 1965, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment.pdf

If you read it, everything is correct. They predict the warming from human-emitted CO2. They say they can't model it yet, but they'll be able to do so soon, and they did (in 1974). They predict the sea level rise, ocean acidification, melting icecaps, everything. Scientists have been getting it all right about global warming for over 50 years now, and that's why the science has so much credibility.

Now, the crazies will say that's when the socialist conspiracy started, but nobody cares about them.

Count that as another coffin nail in the "but they predicted cooling!" nonsense. No, they predicted warming. That report is the statement of the scientific consensus at the time.

One chart that shoots down this AGW propaganda..

 

[mamooth]

Endlessly reposting Spencer's faked graph doesn't make it any less fake.

For more real evidence of just how good global warming science has been, let's revisit Hansen's 1988 prediction.

Scenario B, the one closest to real emissions, predicts a +1.0C anomaly for 2015. And right now, we have a +1.0C anomaly. Hansen's forecast was nearly perfect, yet deniers constantly point to it as being totally wrong. Go fig.

 

[Kosh]

Endlessly reposting Spencer's faked graph doesn't make it any less fake.

For more real evidence of just how good global warming science has been, let's revisit Hansen's 1988 prediction.

Scenario B, the one closest to real emissions, predicts a +1.0C anomaly for 2015. And right now, we have a +1.0C anomaly. Hansen's forecast was nearly perfect, yet deniers constantly point to it as being totally wrong. Go fig.

Never been proven to be fake, except the minds of the AGW cult..

But then again the AGW cult will deny actual science to promote their religious beliefs..

And you just proven once again why Hansen is a hack!