For the global warming denial tarts

[Necrosis]

Another issue is that you guys claim it is a liberal conspiracy, please post said evidence, because there is certainly evidence that the GOP are doing just that.

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/fullpage/fullpage.xhtml?dest=%2Fnews%2FLeaks-Show-Group-s-Climate-Efforts%2Fstory.xhtml%3Fstory_id%3D101005NX58SN

also it is a fact that the majority of denial groups (practically all) are funded by right wing corporations.

Bringing up science from the 1900's and mistakes doesn't prove your point either, claiming " look they made a mistake here, therefore they are wrong" is intellectually laziness.

[Soul Crusher]

Another issue is that you guys claim it is a liberal conspiracy, please post said evidence, because there is certainly evidence that the GOP are doing just that.

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/fullpage/fullpage.xhtml?dest=%2Fnews%2FLeaks-Show-Group-s-Climate-Efforts%2Fstory.xhtml%3Fstory_id%3D101005NX58SN

also it is a fact that the majority of denial groups (practically all) are funded by right wing corporations.

Bringing up science from the 1900's and mistakes doesn't prove your point either, claiming " look they made a mistake here, therefore they are wrong" is intellectually laziness.

Who gives a fuck?   if you want snd your $$$. To al gore go right ahead assface.

[Necrosis]

Who gives a fuck?   if you want snd your $$$. To al gore go right ahead assface.

I don't want to give my money to anyone, clean fuel sources which would reduce CO2 emissions make sense not for global warming only but for the future of our species.

[MCWAY]

Who gives a fuck?   if you want snd your $$$. To al gore go right ahead assface.

Would this be the tree-hugging-yet-jumbo-jet-flying, armored-limo-riding, selling-his-pitiful-TV-network-to-EEEEEVVVVIIIILLLL-oil-barons-from-Al-Jazeera, rich-pay-their-fair-share-but-try-to-beat-the-clock-to-avoid-paying-Obama's-2013-tax-hikes.....AL GORE?

[Necrosis]

Would this be the tree-hugging-yet-jumbo-jet-flying, armored-limo-riding, selling-his-pitiful-TV-network-to-EEEEEVVVVIIIILLLL-oil-barons-from-Al-Jazeera, rich-pay-their-fair-share-but-try-to-beat-the-clock-to-avoid-paying-Obama's-2013-tax-hikes.....AL GORE?

nice deflection, but like always you live inside a lie.

Say Al Gore is a money whoring liar, what does that have to do with Global warming? it says nothing about it.

critical thinking isn't your strong suit.

[MCWAY]

nice deflection, but like always you live inside a lie.

Say Al Gore is a money whoring liar, what does that have to do with Global warming? it says nothing about it.


critical thinking isn't your strong suit.

PLEASE!! Gore is the poster boy of the tree-hugging global warming criers like you. Yet, when push came to shove and he had to unload that crappy left-wing network of his, he sold it to.........AL-JAZEERA, owned lock, stock, and barrel by those EEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIILLLLLL L OIL barons of the Middle East.

Common sense isn't your strong suit. The champion of environmentalists, bowing down to oil sheiks, to pocket $100 million....not to mention his speedy attempt to close the deal to avoid Obama's tax hikes.

[Necrosis]

PLEASE!! Gore is the poster boy of the tree-hugging global warming criers like you. Yet, when push came to shove and he had to unload that crappy left-wing network of his, he sold it to.........AL-JAZEERA, owned lock, stock, and barrel by those EEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIILLLLLL L OIL barons of the Middle East.

Common sense isn't your strong suit. The champion of environmentalists, bowing down to oil sheiks, to pocket $100 million....not to mention his speedy attempt to close the deal to avoid Obama's tax hikes.

again nothing you have stated has any impact on the validity of global warming. I know you like to skirt around the issue but your article has numerous downright lies and whether or not Al Gore is a crook does not matter.

[dario73]

again nothing you have stated has any impact on the validity of global warming.

Really?

What validity?

The article you posted is misleading and it has already been dismissed as junk science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/global-warming-predictions-prove-accurate-guardian/

These claims raise a number of issues, but let’s start by looking at the actual numbers. Plotted below are the annual HADCRUT4 anomalies, (based on y/e August, in line with Allen’s workings).


The decade averages, as indicated by the red lines, have increased from 0.196C to 0.467C, so on the face of it, Allen’s prediction was spot on. But we need to delve a little deeper.

1) Let’s start by making a general observation. The Guardian suggest that the results of this one model somehow vindicate climate modelling in general. This is clearly a nonsense, as we will see later, as is their claim that it “should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change”

2) The article also talks about “the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s”. This is more nonsense – warming has not “slowed down”, it has stopped.

3) The first thing to notice about Allen’s prediction is just how low it was, compared with most other models. His forecast of 0.25C warming in 16 years equates to about 1.5C/century, well below other predictions. We’ll compare a couple later.

4) His starting point, the 10 years ending 1996 were, of course, affected by Pinatubo. The years 1992-94 were about 0.15C lower than the years before and after, so it is reasonable to assume the decadal average was about 0.04C lower as a result. In other words, about a sixth of Allen’s prediction of a 0.25C increase is no more than a rebound from Pinatubo.

5) As there was warming between 1986 and 1996, the temperatures at the end of that decade were already higher than the decadal mean. The average of 1995/96 was 0.07C higher than the decadal mean. In other words, part of Allen’s predicted increase between 1996 and 2012 had already occurred before 1996.

6) By the time the paper was written in 1999, Allen, of course, already knew that temperatures had climbed significantly since 1996, with the average of 1997 and 98 being 0.46C. Remember that his model predicted a figure of 0.45C for the decade to 2012, (0.196C + 0.250C).

I wonder why we were not told then that there would be no net warming for the next 13 years?

7) Although the model has, fortuitously, accurately predicted the temperature to 2012, this does not mean that it has been validated. The lack of warming for at least 10 years is a significant feature, and any model that fails to predict this cannot be said to be validated. It is ludicrous to posit that it “should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change”.

As I mentioned, many other models forecast much more rapid rates of warming. The Met Office’s decadal forecast in 2007, for instance, which predicted global temperatures in 2012 would be 0.60C higher than 1996.



http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/met-office-decadal-forecast2007-version/

9) Or Hansen’s famous 1988 model, that predicted more than a degree of warming, even under Scenario B.

[Necrosis]

Really?

What validity?

The article you posted is misleading and it has already been dismissed as junk science.

do you actually want me to debunk that bullshit you just posted? do you actually believe this drivel. The basic science isn't even right.