Time for failed global warming predictions.

[jc456]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

And this advertisement was brought to you by oil companies.

Nope I explained it economic illiterate.



.

Would help if you could have written that last sentence with grammar and stuff. I'm not sure if you're trying to claim I'm economically illiterate or if you explained it so economically illiterate people could understand, either way, you haven't made a case.

Oil companies spend a lot of money advertising so they can stay in business. Some people are just taken in by it.

Where's your evidence that oil will never run out?

So the oil industry is doing what any business would do to stay in business. Wow, now that is sure a scary thought.

 

[jc456]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

And this advertisement was brought to you by oil companies.

Nope I explained it economic illiterate.



.

Would help if you could have written that last sentence with grammar and stuff. I'm not sure if you're trying to claim I'm economically illiterate or if you explained it so economically illiterate people could understand, either way, you haven't made a case.

Oil companies spend a lot of money advertising so they can stay in business. Some people are just taken in by it.

Where's your evidence that oil will never run out?

So you would be riding a bike right now if the oil company's didn't spend a lot of money to promote fossil fuel ?
and don't say electric cars they were once more popular then gasoline cars in the late 1800s.

God Damn dude you would have to do better then that.


I posted the reason why we would never ever run out of oil, btw they have been predicting that just like climate change since I can remember in the early 70s

yep the Carter years when there were lines and lines at the gas stations. LOL, we have soooooo much oil now that the price came down. hmmmmmm that ought to tell the loser something eh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

they all think oil is from dead dinosaurs. I laugh at that. what a wives tail they believe. The earth's core makes it. It will always make it.

And JustCrazy and BearButt once again reveal just how completely crazy they really are by trying to push another deranged bit of discredited crackpot pseudo-science that they 'believe in' for purely political/ideological reasons, with no science involved.

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia- is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin.

post up the link with evidence where it was proven discredited.

The link is right there in the article, moron. Reference #[1]. Are you feeling all butthurt because your dimwitted myth about endless oil got debunked?

1. Glasby, Geoffrey P (2006). "Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: an historical overview" (PDF). Resource Geology 56 (1): 85–98. doi:10.1111/j.1751-3928.2006.tb00271.x. Retrieved 2008-01-29.

Wait. Wait. Wait. You still think that Earth is the only planet in the solar system that needs dead dinosaurs to make hydrocarbons?

You're a Peak Oiler too?

That's TFF

 

[jc456]

Nope I explained it economic illiterate.



.

Would help if you could have written that last sentence with grammar and stuff. I'm not sure if you're trying to claim I'm economically illiterate or if you explained it so economically illiterate people could understand, either way, you haven't made a case.

Oil companies spend a lot of money advertising so they can stay in business. Some people are just taken in by it.

Where's your evidence that oil will never run out?

So you would be riding a bike right now if the oil company's didn't spend a lot of money to promote fossil fuel ?
and don't say electric cars they were once more popular then gasoline cars in the late 1800s.

God Damn dude you would have to do better then that.


I posted the reason why we would never ever run out of oil, btw they have been predicting that just like climate change since I can remember in the early 70s

I walk to work. Takes me about half an hour. I don't own a car.

You're going to have to do better me thinks.

Where's your EVIDENCE oil won't run out?

Its God Damn human nature for one, for two technically it is a renewable energy three we keep finding reserves, four we have enough shale oil that has yet to be discoverd


Here is an article from the 70s, one of the many about the doom and gloom that the world will run out of oil


View attachment 71465

It's human nature for oil not to run out?

So, there's more oil that is being discovered, this isn't evidence that oil won't run out, this is evidence there is more oil. Two VERY different things.

So, I ask you again, WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE THAT OIL WON'T RUN OUT?

Here's an article which states a prediction based on knowledge from the 1970s. So what?

You're claiming oil will never run out because in the 1970s they thought there was X amount of oil and there's actually more?

That's a ridiculous claim to make.

So where's your EVIDENCE, not you made up nonsense backed up with things that don't prove anything?

dude, ........ dude. OMG, did you really just post this? Really? You should reread your post. Here I'll summarize the key bullets for ya;
Here's an article which states a prediction based on knowledge from the 1970s. So what?
Well, it's evidence that we didn't run out now 39 years later, which disproves the scare. And, we still have ample supply extracted from the fields for use for 50 years and, that there is nothing but additional oil fields waiting to get pumped. So what? obviously you didn't have to live through that fking mess with the gas lines now did you?
So, I ask you again, WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE THAT OIL WON'T RUN OUT?
Where is your evidence we will run out? you're making a statement of fear rather than knowledge. hmmm and again, that was used in the 70's and is now proven absolutely false and nothing but a fear tactic to harm americans.
You're claiming oil will never run out because in the 1970s they thought there was X amount of oil and there's actually more?
Still true today and disproves again the fear tactics of the 70s. Hmmmmm, same thing you're trying to do here.

So please explain to the class your evidence that the oil will be all gone. We're waiting.

Edit: BTW, you'd think by now you all would learn from your mistakes.And yet here you are repeating them.

 

[jc456]

Still finding oil and gas

Offshore discovery could make Brazil major oil exporter


Massive Oil Discovery In Australia Is Deathblow For Saudis


Huge oil discovery in Golan Heights - Israeli media

Still finding it doesn't mean it's limitless.

It isn't? Then tell me how you know it isn't limitless?

 

[jc456]

Well, here are some more failed global warming predictions.

2007

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-...e-from-global-warming-related-causes-by-2012/

——————–

“Top NASA experts predicted an ice-free Arctic for 2012, and it has happened.”

Ice Free Arctic Update

and…

Gore’s “ice free Arctic” prediction from five years ago, falsified by nature itself

Nature proves Al Gore wrong again

——————–

No Global Warming For Almost Sixteen Years

No Global Warming For Almost Sixteen Years

——————–

Major change in UK Meteorology Office global warming forecast

Major change in UK Met Office global warming forecast

——————–

The Official Forecast of the U.S. Government Never Saw This [2013-14] Winter Coming

The Official Forecast of the U.S. Government Never Saw This Winter Coming

——————–

Top 5 failed ‘snow free’ and ‘ice free’ predictions

Top 5 failed 'snow free' and 'ice free' predictions | The Daily Caller

Let me know if you want more in order to get the reactions from the left who have no clue how to deal with their ineptitude.

We were right then, like we are right now.

Hey left wing global warming believers!!!

What do you think a prediction is?

for climate? Failure.

 

[jc456]

"Who sounds crazier?"

GOOD QUESTION!

Who does sound crazier? Those who accept reality and trust the scientific experts and the evidence obvious to everybody that confirms anthropogenic global warming and climate changes.....or those, like you, who deny reality for ideological reasons and reject the virtually unanimous testimony of the scientific experts on the climate who say that mankind's activities are warming the planet and rapidly changing previously stable climate patterns, while clinging to anti-science myths about supposed 'natural cycles' that they can't identify that are supposedly causing the observed warming.

This one makes ten time the sense of your stupid post.
[/Q

 

[jc456]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

they all think oil is from dead dinosaurs. I laugh at that. what a wives tail they believe. The earth's core makes it. It will always make it.

And JustCrazy and BearButt once again reveal just how completely crazy they really are by trying to push another deranged bit of discredited crackpot pseudo-science that they 'believe in' for purely political/ideological reasons, with no science involved.

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia- is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin.

post up the link with evidence where it was proven discredited.

The link is right there in the article, moron. Reference #[1]. Are you feeling all butthurt because your dimwitted myth about endless oil got debunked?

1. Glasby, Geoffrey P (2006). "Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: an historical overview" (PDF). Resource Geology 56 (1): 85–98. doi:10.1111/j.1751-3928.2006.tb00271.x. Retrieved 2008-01-29.

Well son at work I can't get to your link. Where the fk is it anyway that it would get blocked by security? hahahhhahahhahaha, yep, you got some junk going there I'm sure with that security issue.

 

[jc456]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

And this advertisement was brought to you by oil companies.

Nope I explained it economic illiterate.



.

Would help if you could have written that last sentence with grammar and stuff. I'm not sure if you're trying to claim I'm economically illiterate or if you explained it so economically illiterate people could understand, either way, you haven't made a case.

Oil companies spend a lot of money advertising so they can stay in business. Some people are just taken in by it.

Where's your evidence that oil will never run out?

So the oil industry is doing what any business would do to stay in business. Wow, now that is sure a scary thought.

BTW, I think they should shoot themselves in the leg and die a slow death cause shit making money is for fools right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm trying to see what your point is, but failing....

oh you get it. We might be warming some but it's NATURAL and Mother earth has been warming and cooling for millions of YEARS before Scientist were able to be BOUGHT off

We have been warming and cooling naturally for millions of years.

What we haven't had is artificial man made warming in those millions of years. We don't understand the consequences of our actions.

Right now the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere is killing the seas. The sea takes the brunt of excess CO2 and this is changing the PH levels of the seas and destroying marine life there.

What happens if the seas die and can no longer do this? Has this ever happened in the past, or were the increases and decreases in CO2 levels regulated on a natural basis that we're no longer getting.

The simple fact is (and there are few 100% certain facts in this) that we just don't know. You're willing to go all gung ho on this one and believe the oil companies. I'm rather more cautious on the environment of the only planet we've got.

It's like being at home and saying "hey, let's light a big fire on the floor of the living room" and someone saying "but it might burn the house down" and the other person replying "but it might NOT burn the house down".

 

[frigidweirdo]

The irony of this poster is that the other side gets loads of funding from oil companies. Hmmmm forgot to mention that or you were using a biased cartoon?

As for getting stuck in ice, well, it's not our fault you don't understand how the world works.

obviously, neither do those scientists who got stuck, eh?

Er..... they probably do. However when you're in such places, you're always taking a risk.

People assume that the further the ice spreads, the more ice there is. Not true. It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted, then when it freezes again the wind is taking it out further and making the ice sheet larger, even though there is a lot less ice actually there.

er.... they probably do? What the fk is that? They got stuck in summer ice which in the act alone they were totally clueless. So again, you have zip to add to the discussion cause all you're doing is posting garbage.

Firstly. Who do you think was in charge of the ship? Scientists or the ship's captain?

Secondly, if you go to places of extreme weather, like the poles, you take risks no matter what time of the year.

Thirdly, is this really your argument? Really?

 

[frigidweirdo]

In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

In the real world...

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American
By Glenn Scherer
December 6, 2012
(excerpts)
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

Lmao...



Btw....Where is the sea level rising retard?


What temperture rise????????.


Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.


.

Actually it's not 50/50 it will be hotter or colder next year. It's probably a 66% chance it will be hotter next year.

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And this advertisement was brought to you by oil companies.

Nope I explained it economic illiterate.



.

Would help if you could have written that last sentence with grammar and stuff. I'm not sure if you're trying to claim I'm economically illiterate or if you explained it so economically illiterate people could understand, either way, you haven't made a case.

Oil companies spend a lot of money advertising so they can stay in business. Some people are just taken in by it.

Where's your evidence that oil will never run out?

So you would be riding a bike right now if the oil company's didn't spend a lot of money to promote fossil fuel ?
and don't say electric cars they were once more popular then gasoline cars in the late 1800s.

God Damn dude you would have to do better then that.


I posted the reason why we would never ever run out of oil, btw they have been predicting that just like climate change since I can remember in the early 70s

I walk to work. Takes me about half an hour. I don't own a car.

You're going to have to do better me thinks.

Where's your EVIDENCE oil won't run out?

Where's your EVIDENCE oil won't run out?
Funny you ask that question, my answer right now is there is no evidence it will run out.

Where is your evidence it will run out?

So you're basically asking a question as your answer?

I've asked this question three times and you're expecting me to then answer your question. I'll answer your question AFTER you've answered mine. Of course, my answer is going to be quite simple actually, and very provable, your answer, and the reason you're stalling, is impossible, simply because it's just wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The irony of this poster is that the other side gets loads of funding from oil companies. Hmmmm forgot to mention that or you were using a biased cartoon?

As for getting stuck in ice, well, it's not our fault you don't understand how the world works.

obviously, neither do those scientists who got stuck, eh?

Er..... they probably do. However when you're in such places, you're always taking a risk.

People assume that the further the ice spreads, the more ice there is. Not true. It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted, then when it freezes again the wind is taking it out further and making the ice sheet larger, even though there is a lot less ice actually there.

It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted,

what causes the melt when the temperature never goes above -20 degree F. Pray tell this should be good. I'll tell you why after you can explain your statement.

Climate of Antarctica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 17.5 °C (63.5 °F) at Hope Bay on 24 March 2015."

-20 degrees huh? Never goes above huh?

 

[Wyatt earp]

In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

In the real world...

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American
By Glenn Scherer
December 6, 2012
(excerpts)
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

Lmao...



Btw....Where is the sea level rising retard?


What temperture rise????????.


Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.


.

Actually it's not 50/50 it will be hotter or colder next year. It's probably a 66% chance it will be hotter next year.

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

 

[Theowl32]

In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

In the real world...

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American
By Glenn Scherer
December 6, 2012
(excerpts)
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

Lmao...



Btw....Where is the sea level rising retard?


What temperture rise????????.


Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.


.

Actually it's not 50/50 it will be hotter or colder next year. It's probably a 66% chance it will be hotter next year.

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

Yeah, LA underwater would be funny.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

In the real world...

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American
By Glenn Scherer
December 6, 2012
(excerpts)
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

Lmao...



Btw....Where is the sea level rising retard?


What temperture rise????????.


Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.


.

Actually it's not 50/50 it will be hotter or colder next year. It's probably a 66% chance it will be hotter next year.

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

In the real world...

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American
By Glenn Scherer
December 6, 2012
(excerpts)
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

Lmao...



Btw....Where is the sea level rising retard?


What temperture rise????????.


Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.


.

Actually it's not 50/50 it will be hotter or colder next year. It's probably a 66% chance it will be hotter next year.

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

Think what is evidence? I'm talking about predictions.

So, you want the world to go messed up? You're kind of dangerous.

 

[jc456]

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

Lmao...



Btw....Where is the sea level rising retard?


What temperture rise????????.


Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.


.

Actually it's not 50/50 it will be hotter or colder next year. It's probably a 66% chance it will be hotter next year.

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

Lmao...



Btw....Where is the sea level rising retard?


What temperture rise????????.


Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.


.

Actually it's not 50/50 it will be hotter or colder next year. It's probably a 66% chance it will be hotter next year.

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

Think what is evidence? I'm talking about predictions.

So, you want the world to go messed up? You're kind of dangerous.

You want to kill poor people with no evidence to show your proof. You're the fking dangerous one fkr

 

[frigidweirdo]

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

Lmao...



Btw....Where is the sea level rising retard?


What temperture rise????????.


Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.


.

Actually it's not 50/50 it will be hotter or colder next year. It's probably a 66% chance it will be hotter next year.

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

Yeah, LA underwater would be funny.

Where do you think the people will go? That's right, they'll end up in your neighborhood. Funny then?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually it's not 50/50 it will be hotter or colder next year. It's probably a 66% chance it will be hotter next year.

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

Actually it's not 50/50 it will be hotter or colder next year. It's probably a 66% chance it will be hotter next year.

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

Either way you'd be making a prediction and I'd be making a prediction. You use the evidence you think is relevant, I use what I think is relevant and we stake our claims.

This is what we've got right now. No one can say what WILL happen, just what they think will happen.

You seriously think that is evidence?

To each his own, I am personally so sick of hearing about it in the past forty years. I just wish the Sears tower (spelled Willis) would be under a mile of snow by now or L.A. would be underwater.



.

Think what is evidence? I'm talking about predictions.

So, you want the world to go messed up? You're kind of dangerous.

You want to kill poor people with no evidence to show your proof. You're the fking dangerous one fkr

Now I want to kill poor people. Hmm. Are you drunk or something?