You keep referencing my original statement and demanding sources, despite the fact that I've already provided numerous sources. Again, here is my source: https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case
The predictions that lay the foundation for the entire global warming / climate change farce have not come true, therefore they are false.
From my source:
>Figure 3: Hansen's predictions to the US Congress in 1988 [1] compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites [2].
>Figure 4: Predictions of the IPCC's First Assessment Report in 1990, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.
[1]: Hansen et al, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 93, no. D8 (August 20, 1988), fig. 3a, p. 9,347 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341
[2]: The earth’s temperature shown here is as measured by the NASA satellites that have been measuring the earth’s temperature since 1979, managed at the University of Alabama Hunstville (UAH). Satellites measure the temperature 24/7 over broad swathes of land and ocean, across the whole world except the poles. While satellites had some initial calibration problems, those have long since been fully fixed to everyone’s satisfaction. Satellites are mankind’s most reliable, extensive, and unbiased method for measuring the earth’s air temperature temperatures since 1979. This is an impeccable source of data, and you can download the data yourself from vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (save it as .txt file then open it in Microsoft Excel; the numbers in the “Globe” column are the changes in MSU Global Monthly Mean Lower Troposphere Temperatures in °C).
[3]: IPCC First Assessment Report, 1990, page xxii in the Policymakers Summary, Figure 8 and surrounding text, for the business-as-usual scenario (which is what in fact occurred, there being no significant controls or decrease in the rate of increase of emissions to date). “Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C).”
But we all know that simply yelling:
SOOUUURRRCCCEEE
Is just another tactic used by actual shills such as yourself. No different to screaming racism. Do you really need to a source to prove that the scientists got it so wrong that they had to change the entire fucking name from Global Warming to Climate Change?
Apologies for missing your source in the midst of your wall of crazy ranting. At first glace I'm pleasantly surprised that the blog post is at least written by someone with a PhD. I intend to have a read and get back to you.
PS:
If it's man made, then how climate change happen in the past without humans?
Are you that stupid?
Well, that didn't take long...
You source is one kook with a PhD in electrical engineering writing blog posts on a website dedicated to free-market economics. ie. paid for by the corporations who stand to lose from global warming. Remember, you just have to follow the money.
Of course Evan's claims do appear to be full of shit as explained . Only a fool would seriously present one debunked electrical engineer versus the established scientific consensus on climate change.
You know why I'm not a shill? Because pretty much nobody pays environmentalists to promote the truth and try to preserve the environment. You on the other hand really stink like a shill and, unlike my side, there are plenty of massive evil corporations ready to give assholes like you money.
What else do you have? I think nobody takes you cunts seriously anymore after you kept claiming that global warming had ended.. .
>Evan's claims do appear to be full of shit as explained here. Only a fool would seriously present one debunked electrical engineer versus the established scientific consensus on climate change.
Your link: Posted on 15 April 2011 by dana1981... dana1981
If my link is bad because it is written by someone with a PHD in electrical engineering, what does that make your article when the author doesn't even use their real name, let alone credentials. And you neglected to mention that Evans "consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products." He knows his shit.
Now stop side tracking the argument with pissing contests over sources, and get back to the point.
Do you agree or disagree that the data I presented to you and is correct. Can we at least establish that much?
Your link: Posted on 15 April 2011 by dana1981... dana1981
Regarding climate sensitivity, all dana1981 did was point out the numerous studies by other authors, summarised by the IPCC, that show that Evans is lying. (Try reading what was written).
Evans is completely alone in his crazy claims, which is why nobody knows or cares who he is. My the way, Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental consultant with a PhD in astrophysics from Berkely.
So are you conceding that Evans' climate sensitivity claims are completely stupid and fully debunked?
Do you agree or disagree that the data I presented to you here and here is correct. Can we at least establish that much?
No shill. So your entire argument still rests on one lying electrical engineer?
Hansen's predictions are discussed in my link above and more fully . They were remarkably good. This strategy of trying to discredit the entire body of global warming theory by picking tiny holes in the future predictions of a scientist clearly isn't going anywhere.
Our knowledge of the future is always probabilistic, based on our best current knowledge. On a much shorter time scale weather prediction is often wrong, but we don't go trashing the entire science of meteorology, unless we're pieces of shit paid by a coal company.
Follow the money!!
(post is archived)