Let us look at the TOP TEN FAILED global warming PREDICTIONS. lol

Theowl32

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
17,567
Reaction score
7,819
Points
1,065


The Climate Research Unit in East Anglia tried to hide the data proving that warming had "paused". It was only released following a Freedom of Information request from a journalist. Hacked emails prove that the head of the CRU wanted to DELETE the data, because in contradicted AGW. This is the head of a publicly funded organisation saying he wanted to try and cover up the fact he was wrong. It's only in the last couple of years that the International Panel on Climate Change have admitted the pause exists. Papers trumpet "hottest year ever" regularly. What they mean is warmest, not hottest. Maximum temp isn't increasing, as predicted by every computer model of climate change. Instead winters are not as cold, hence AVERAGE temp is warmer. The Times produced an authoritative map of Greenland ice melt caused be global warming. Unfortunately, the line they chose to mark the edge of the ice cap was in fact the line showing where the depth of the ice was "just" 500 meters, or 1,640 feet.

The five key leaked emails from UEA's Climatic Research Unit


 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,467
Reaction score
4,098
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
All you have to know is, every single climate crusader thinks the investigation into East Anglia was legitimate. LOL.....I work for a 100 million dollar human services company that does about 400 investigations/year. If we did them like that, we'd be put out of business by the state of New York inside a week. That investigation was a charade. Imagine the Clinton e-mail investigation being conducted by Lanny Davis or Leon Panetta!!:2up:
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
34,574
Reaction score
7,440
Points
1,130
The problem is too many have been brainwashed into thinking “climate change” is proof of global warming. They just believe and all who don’t, must be ridiculed. This ridiculing non-believers of The Church of Latter Day Warmers, keeps the believers in line.

AGW is a falsehood that has become a fact to too many easily persuaded Americans.
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,467
Reaction score
4,098
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
The problem is too many have been brainwashed into thinking “climate change” is proof of global warming. They just believe and all who don’t, must be ridiculed. This ridiculing non-believers of The Church of Latter Day Warmers, keeps the believers in line.

AGW is a falsehood that has become a fact to too many easily persuaded Americans.

I rather like the analogy of the Moonies!:113:
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,163
Reaction score
28,168
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
“Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer rips NYT claim of hottest ‘years on record’: ‘Alleged record warmings are tenths of a degree or less, comparable to the statistical error’

Happer on NYT: The article ends with the silly claim that the “six warmest years on record occurred after 2010.” The alleged record warmings are tenths of a degree or less, comparable to the statistical error. Thermometers have only existed for a few centuries and there are still no reliable networks of thermometers to measure global surface temperatures, although satellite measurements do provide a pretty good global average for the lower atmosphere since the year 1979. There is excellent proxy evidence that Earth’s temperature was warmer than today on several occasions since the end of the last ice age, about 12,000 years ago.” New York Times hysterical over global greening | CFACT
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,467
Reaction score
4,098
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
“Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer rips NYT claim of hottest ‘years on record’: ‘Alleged record warmings are tenths of a degree or less, comparable to the statistical error’

Happer on NYT: The article ends with the silly claim that the “six warmest years on record occurred after 2010.” The alleged record warmings are tenths of a degree or less, comparable to the statistical error. Thermometers have only existed for a few centuries and there are still no reliable networks of thermometers to measure global surface temperatures, although satellite measurements do provide a pretty good global average for the lower atmosphere since the year 1979. There is excellent proxy evidence that Earth’s temperature was warmer than today on several occasions since the end of the last ice age, about 12,000 years ago.” New York Times hysterical over global greening | CFACT
Yep....these phonies like to throw around the term "warmer all the time and connect it with colorful graphs with lots of brilliant red and orange colors.

They never define "warmer" however and when people take the time to see what "warmer" means, they split their sides laughing.

Fakery is ghey
 

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
22,007
Reaction score
6,198
Points
1,010
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
“Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer rips NYT claim of hottest ‘years on record’: ‘Alleged record warmings are tenths of a degree or less, comparable to the statistical error’

Happer on NYT: The article ends with the silly claim that the “six warmest years on record occurred after 2010.” The alleged record warmings are tenths of a degree or less, comparable to the statistical error. Thermometers have only existed for a few centuries and there are still no reliable networks of thermometers to measure global surface temperatures, although satellite measurements do provide a pretty good global average for the lower atmosphere since the year 1979. There is excellent proxy evidence that Earth’s temperature was warmer than today on several occasions since the end of the last ice age, about 12,000 years ago.” New York Times hysterical over global greening | CFACT
The MOE (Margin Of Error) of the equipment used is +/-0.2 deg C. SO if it falls within that 0.4 deg C MOE its essentially ZERO... Their pontifications are pure Bull Shit..
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,236
Reaction score
10,712
Points
2,030
Their models are made from ignorance.
Im no consoiracy theorist, but they completely ignore the ignorance and try to pass it off as fact.
Makes me think they just want to run the world. And they need their money flowing because they built their career on this ignorance.
Its bullshit
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,236
Reaction score
10,712
Points
2,030
Use the same theories and models over and over. And have been proven to manipulate data.
Fuck em
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
58,194
Reaction score
7,411
Points
1,830
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Punishing 'climate change deniers'
Climate Nazis

2005: Margo Kingston, in Australia’s Daily Briefing, said: “Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.”

2006: Bill McGuire, at University College, London, said: “We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And, to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference.”

2006: The Grist.com website called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. The article was later retracted.

2006: Heidi Cullen featured Dave Roberts, who said online, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.” The remark was not later retracted.

2006: Mark Lynas, a “green” columnist, wrote: “I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.”

2006: Spiked Online reported that when a correspondent for the American current affairs show 60 Minutes was asked why his various feature programmes on global warming did not include the views of global warming sceptics, he replied: “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”

2007: Ellen Goodman, in the Boston Globe, said: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

2007: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics, saying: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” The penalty for treason is death.

2007: Yvo de Boer, secretary general of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible”.

2007: Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a UN special climate envoy, said: “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.

2008: Dr James Hansen of NASA demanded that skeptics be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2008: David Suzuki, a Canadian environmentalist, said government leaders skeptical of global warming should be “thrown into jail”.

2008: Alex Lockwood, a British journalism professor, said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.

2009: A writer at Talking Points Memo said global warming “deniers” should be executed or jailed. He later retracted this remark.

2010: James Lovelock, inventor of the “Gaia hypothesis”, told The Guardian: “I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

2010: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Penn State University, declared that skeptics, who had caused “a 25-year delay in acting to stop climate change”, may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2010: A video from the “10:10 campaign” showed climate skeptic children being blown up by their teacher in class, and their classmates were spattered with their blood and guts.

2011: An Australian journalist said climate skeptics should be “branded” with cattle-irons to mark them out from the rest of the population.

2011: Another Australian journalist said skeptics should be “gassed”.

2012: Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz, Austria, recommended the death penalty for skeptics. He later withdrew.

2012: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Widener University School of Law, again declared that skeptics may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2014: Dr Lawrence Torcello, assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote that people who disagreed with him should be sent to jail.

2014: During a February cold snap, the New York Times ran a cartoon headed “Self-Destructing Sabers for Dispatching Climate-Change Deniers” and showing a climate skeptic being stabbed with an icicle.



2014: The gawker.com website said: “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.”

2014: The host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show promoted Soviet-style re-education for climate skeptic politicians by conducting an on-air poll on the question “Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”

2015: Katie Herzog at Grist.com on 16 January wrote: “If this planet is to survive the scourge that is humanity, we all have to stop reproducing. Yes, all of us. In that spirit, I propose we … sterilize every human male on his 10th birthday.”

2015: Comment on the webpage of the Brisbane Times about a category 5 cyclone along the Queensland coast on 19/20 February: “These type of weather events could happen further south in future and be more intense with global warming … if anyone has to suffer out of this one I hope it is a climate change denier, if anyone.” Downloaded fromhttp://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cyclone-marcia-live-coverage-20150219-13iuaw.html.

2015: The Australian Capital Territory’s Arts Fund gave $18,793 “to assist with costs of the creative development of a new theatre work, Kill Climate Deniers.

This isn't science. This is a cult.

 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
36,639
Reaction score
7,908
Points
1,240
Location
Florida
None of the predictions ever come true because it is all a scam.

That is why they have to falsify data.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,710
Reaction score
3,911
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Oh look, another denier mutual weeping and data-denying thread. They're all just babbling political conspiracy gibberish, and congratulating each other for some especially stupid piece of political conspiracy gibberish.

Back in reality, the consensus predictions have been stellar. That's why deniers need to cherry pick anything except the actual consensus predictions. By doing so, they are committing fraud. It's what they do. It's all they do.

So why do deniers do it? Because their political cult orders them to lie. None of them has the guts to tell their cult "No, I won't lie for you." Those possessing the brains and guts necessary to do that wouldn't have gotten sucked into that cult in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
22,007
Reaction score
6,198
Points
1,010
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Oh look, another denier mutual weeping and data-denying thread. They're all just babbling political conspiracy gibberish, and congratulating each other for some especially stupid piece of political conspiracy gibberish.

Back in reality, the consensus predictions have been stellar. That's why deniers need to cherry pick anything except the actual consensus predictions. By doing so, they are committing fraud. It's what they do. It's all they do.

So why do deniers do it? Because their political cult orders them to lie. None of them has the guts to tell their cult "No, I won't lie for you." Those possessing the brains and guts necessary to do that wouldn't have gotten sucked into that cult in the first place.
Empirical Observed Evidence calls out your fantasy modeling failures... To bad your too stupid to see you have been duped..
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,710
Reaction score
3,911
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Empirical Observed Evidence calls out your fantasy modeling failures... To bad your too stupid to see you have been duped..
The models have been excellent.

Only frauds still try to pretend otherwise.

Only the most brazen frauds will post faked graphs to back up their fraud. After all, it's been demonstrated to you over and over that your graphs are fraudulent.

What does it say about you, that you keep positing fakes, knowing full well they're fakes? I think it says you're in for a toasty afterlife.
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,467
Reaction score
4,098
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Oh look, another denier mutual weeping and data-denying thread. They're all just babbling political conspiracy gibberish, and congratulating each other for some especially stupid piece of political conspiracy gibberish.

Back in reality, the consensus predictions have been stellar. That's why deniers need to cherry pick anything except the actual consensus predictions. By doing so, they are committing fraud. It's what they do. It's all they do.

So why do deniers do it? Because their political cult orders them to lie. None of them has the guts to tell their cult "No, I won't lie for you." Those possessing the brains and guts necessary to do that wouldn't have gotten sucked into that cult in the first place.

But if deniers are such a "cult", why is there no climate change action happening in America? If the science is so beyond reproach, why have the alarmists scored no political victories in well over 10 years? Whats up with that?

The politics are everything s0n...…..that's the way it is and has always been. Not enough people are impressed with the science...…the public think the models are ghey……....which means, who is the real "cult"?:flirtysmile4:
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,026
Reaction score
1,433
Points
275
Location
N/A
Empirical Observed Evidence calls out your fantasy modeling failures... To bad your too stupid to see you have been duped..
You mean empirical evidence like this?



 

toobfreak

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
25,105
Reaction score
7,062
Points
290


The Climate Research Unit in East Anglia tried to hide the data proving that warming had "paused". It was only released following a Freedom of Information request from a journalist. Hacked emails prove that the head of the CRU wanted to DELETE the data, because in contradicted AGW. This is the head of a publicly funded organisation saying he wanted to try and cover up the fact he was wrong. It's only in the last couple of years that the International Panel on Climate Change have admitted the pause exists. Papers trumpet "hottest year ever" regularly. What they mean is warmest, not hottest. Maximum temp isn't increasing, as predicted by every computer model of climate change. Instead winters are not as cold, hence AVERAGE temp is warmer. The Times produced an authoritative map of Greenland ice melt caused be global warming. Unfortunately, the line they chose to mark the edge of the ice cap was in fact the line showing where the depth of the ice was "just" 500 meters, or 1,640 feet.
The five key leaked emails from UEA's Climatic Research Unit

Yep! The global alarmists have gotten nearly everything wrong, right back to the time they used to tell us we were heading for another ice age. However, that said, I'm convinced the climate IS changing in many parts of the planet for the worse, and rather rapidly, and that man is playing a role in it. However, I don't think he is the sole cause and whatever draconian measures some alarmists imagine necessary will not stop it. Mankind is merely helping it along a bit, and as history shows us, the Earth has done this and far worse cyclically for billions of years and life adapts. Hopefully in the coming century, technology will slowly ween us off the need for fossil fuels and other pollutants, ITMT, the best thing we can do is try to go after the REAL problem and start trying to curb overpopulation. It isn't what we do which is so wrong just that so many of us are doing it.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top