Could This Be Number 42????

[abu afak]

NOT just the Antarctic!.. which does NOT refute GLOBAL Warming.

#1 NOAA, 10 Warmest years

Anyone think this is "Cooling?"

#2 From NOAA LINK: More Near-Record Warm Years Are Likely On Horizon

And of course all the previous years generally rising and also in the 21st Century with the exception of 1998.

`

 

[Colin norris]

It's really, really difficult to keep up with the number of bloopers the Warmists manage to accumulate.

The South Pole with the coldest winter in history! The average ...​

https://mkweather.com › Articles
The South Pole with the coldest winter in history! The average temperature of April – September half-year only -61,0°C!

South Pole froze over in coldest winter on record | Live Science​

https://www.livescience.com › south-pole-coldest-winte...
Oct 5, 2021 — Between April and September, a research station sitting on a high plateau in Antarctica, registered an average temperature of minus 78 degrees ...

Antarctica's last 6 months were the coldest on record | CNN​

https://www.cnn.com › 2021/10/09 › weather › weather-r...
Oct 9, 2021 — “For the polar darkness period, from April through September, the average temperature was -60.9 degrees Celsius (-77.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a ...

Antarctic interior posts coldest April-to-September on record​

https://www.weatherzone.com.au › news › antarctic-inte...
Oct 13, 2021 — Casey Station, which is the closest permanent Antarctic station to Australia, had a mean temperature of minus 14ºC between April and September.




For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.

Mark Simone

You stupid brain dead idiot. But you are a republican so it fits you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, you don't actually have a college education and you don't have proof for the list of lies for which you said you had proof.

Got it.

So does everyone else.

I put you in your place, but let's cut to the chase: the one-question IQ test.


Who'd you vote for?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Given that you've just tried to foist off a monstrous list of "monumental lies", why in heaven't name would we believe you on something like that? You've certainly never demonstrated an objective command of logic or science.

No lies, and every normal person recognizes that they are all true.

Democrats lie about everything.

 

[skookerasbil]

It's really, really difficult to keep up with the number of bloopers the Warmists manage to accumulate.

The South Pole with the coldest winter in history! The average ...​

https://mkweather.com › Articles
The South Pole with the coldest winter in history! The average temperature of April – September half-year only -61,0°C!

South Pole froze over in coldest winter on record | Live Science​

https://www.livescience.com › south-pole-coldest-winte...
Oct 5, 2021 — Between April and September, a research station sitting on a high plateau in Antarctica, registered an average temperature of minus 78 degrees ...

Antarctica's last 6 months were the coldest on record | CNN​

https://www.cnn.com › 2021/10/09 › weather › weather-r...
Oct 9, 2021 — “For the polar darkness period, from April through September, the average temperature was -60.9 degrees Celsius (-77.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a ...

Antarctic interior posts coldest April-to-September on record​

https://www.weatherzone.com.au › news › antarctic-inte...
Oct 13, 2021 — Casey Station, which is the closest permanent Antarctic station to Australia, had a mean temperature of minus 14ºC between April and September.




For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.

Mark Simone

Lol.

 

[skookerasbil]

So, you don't actually have a college education and you don't have proof for the list of lies for which you said you had proof.

Got it.

So does everyone else.

Only thing that matters is who's not winning?

 

[skookerasbil]

NOT just the Antarctic!.. which does NOT refute GLOBAL Warming.

#1 NOAA, 10 Warmest years

Anyone think this is "Cooling?"

#2 From NOAA LINK: More Near-Record Warm Years Are Likely On Horizon

And of course all the previous years generally rising and also in the 21st Century with the exception of 1998.


View attachment 627674


`

Nobody is caring about loose association fake terms used by the climate crusaders like "rising". To most folks, statistically insignificant triggers the snooze alarm

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[westwall]

Only a hateful screeching fool will fail to acknowledge when the earth's hottest years occurred.

Warming Winter Olympics

Climate Central bridges the scientific community and the public, providing clear information to help people make sound decisions about the climate.

www.climatecentral.org

In the 1930's!


DURRRRRRR

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

In the 1930's!


DURRRRRRR

I'm always impressed at people like you, Westie, who don't understand the concept of "anecdotal data", and CERTAINLY don't understand the concept of "noise" in the data.

It's pretty impressive to see someone so grossly uneducated in the sciences and mathematics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm always impressed at people like you, Westie, who don't understand the concept of "anecdotal data", and CERTAINLY don't understand the concept of "noise" in the data.

It's pretty impressive to see someone so grossly uneducated in the sciences and mathematics.

Why limit your statement to such a limited field?
Who'd you vote for???

 

[westwall]

I'm always impressed at people like you, Westie, who don't understand the concept of "anecdotal data", and CERTAINLY don't understand the concept of "noise" in the data.

It's pretty impressive to see someone so grossly uneducated in the sciences and mathematics.

I am always amused by clods, like you, who don't understand the scientific method. The scientific method was developed to eliminate pseudo science. If you follow the method, you end up with good science. if you fail to follow the method, you don't.

It is as simple as that.

Climatologists, the bad ones, refute the scientific method.

Thus, they are nothing more than palm readers.

 

[Donald H]

I'm always impressed at people like you, Westie, who don't understand the concept of "anecdotal data", and CERTAINLY don't understand the concept of "noise" in the data.

It's pretty impressive to see someone so grossly uneducated in the sciences and mathematics.

Thanks and help yourself.
Better I don't buy into it.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I am always amused by clods, like you, who don't understand the scientific method. The scientific method was developed to eliminate pseudo science. If you follow the method, you end up with good science. if you fail to follow the method, you don't.

LOL. Yeah, got it, you topped out at Junior High Science.

Thus, they are nothing more than palm readers.

Like you know! LOLOLOL!

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Thanks and help yourself.
Better I don't buy into it.

Well, to be fair, without a doctorate in earth science so you may not have run across sufficient information.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Why limit your statement to such a limited field?

Do you even know what I'm talking about here? The 1930's peak temperature is a single data point in a noisy time-series. But it's even more interesting than that because the claim that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the US is no longer accurate.

Who'd you vote for???

I understand that you are not a scientist so talking about science is something you wish to avoid. Unfortuantely this is a science-based topic. Perhaps you can go where technical education in the physical sciences is not required.

 

[westwall]

Do you even know what I'm talking about here? The 1930's peak temperature is a single data point in a noisy time-series. But it's even more interesting than that because the claim that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the US is no longer accurate.



I understand that you are not a scientist so talking about science is something you wish to avoid. Unfortuantely this is a science-based topic. Perhaps you can go where technical education in the physical sciences is not required.

It isn't? The 1930's as a decade were warmer than any decade since. The "records" you squeal about are false. The climatologists take raw data, and run them through GCM's, and voila, a raw record that shows a slight cooling, is suddenly reversed. That is called "falsification of data".

 

[westwall]

LOL. Yeah, got it, you topped out at Junior High Science.



Like you know! LOLOLOL!

Yeah, I DO know. Trenberth famously claimed that his experiments didn't need to be repeatable. What does the scientific method say about repeatability?



DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR



The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



"Chairman Smith. Good morning to everyone. The Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing called ``Climate Science:
Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method.''
I'll recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement, and then the Ranking Member.
Today we will examine the scientific method as it relates
to climate change. We must ensure that the underlying science
that informs policy decisions is based on credible scientific
methodology.
I believe the climate is changing and that humans play a
role. However, I also believe significant questions remain as
to the extent. Our actions must be based on sound science. This
is the only way we will be able to better address climate
change.
Before we impose costly government regulations, we should
evaluate scientific uncertainties and ascertain the extent to
which they make it difficult to quantify humans' contribution
to climate change.
Far too often, alarmist theories on climate science
originate with scientists who operate outside of the principles
of the scientific method. The scientific method is a simple
process that has been used for centuries. It involves
identifying a question, developing a hypothesis, constructing
an experiment, and analyzing the results. If the results do not
align with the original hypothesis, the hypothesis must be
reexamined. The scientific method welcomes critiques so
theories can be refined, and it avoids speculation about
distant events for which there is no hard proof.
Alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild
guesses. The ability to predict far into the future is
impossible. Anyone stating what the climate will be in 500
years or even at the end of the century is not credible.
All too often, scientists ignore the basic tenants of
science in order to justify their claims. Their ultimate goal
appears to be to promote a personal agenda, even if the
evidence doesn't support it.
The scientific method is regarded as the foundation of
modern science. It ensures that scientific experimentation is
neither arbitrary nor subjective, and that results can be
replicated.
In the field of climate science, there is legitimate
concern that scientists are biased in favor of reaching
predetermined conclusions. This inevitably leads to alarmist
findings that are wrongfully reported as facts.
The scientific method also requires that for a hypothesis
to become a theory, a repeated validation of the results,
called reproducibility, should be possible. However, a recent
survey found that 70 percent of scientific researchers have
tried and failed to reproduce the experiments conducted by
other scientists. The lack of reproducibility is a warning that
the scientific method is not being followed and that the theory
may lack credibility.
To restore faith in science, we must uphold the principles
of scientific integrity. For example, the Science Committee
heard from whistleblowers that National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) employees put their ``thumb on the
scale'' during the analysis of data. This was done to arrive at
politically correct results that would disprove the absence of
global temperature increases from 1998 to 2012.
More recently, NOAA admitted to Committee staff that there
was no legal justification for not complying with the
Committee's lawfully issued subpoena requesting information. In
fact, we learned that it was simply a political decision to
halt any further debate on the subject. This is professional
misconduct, if not worse.
A similar event unfolded in 2009. Emails from East Anglia
University scientists were uncovered and revealed that they
frequently violated principles of scientific integrity and
attempted to halt debate about climate science.
Much of climate science today appears to be based more on
exaggerations, personal agendas, and questionable predictions
than on the scientific method. Those who engage in such actions
do a disservice to the American people and to their own
profession. Only when scientists follow the scientific method
can policymakers be confident that they are making the right
decisions. Until then, the debate should continue."

- CLIMATE SCIENCE: ASSUMPTIONS, POLICY IMPLICATIONS, AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you even know what I'm talking about here? The 1930's peak temperature is a single data point in a noisy time-series. But it's even more interesting than that because the claim that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the US is no longer accurate.



I understand that you are not a scientist so talking about science is something you wish to avoid. Unfortuantely this is a science-based topic. Perhaps you can go where technical education in the physical sciences is not required.

Who'd you vote for?


The palpable fear of answering obviates any chance your critique of any other human has any basis in fact.....you dunce.


BTW....it would be another error on your part to suggest comparing educational CVs with moi.