More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Now that certainly benefits the discussion here. This comment well illustrates the notion that you don't have any intention of promoting debate for the seeking of understanding or truth, but rather to mock or dismiss all who don't agree with your opinion in the matter (let me put on my "shocked face"), It conveys to me you willingly embrace perception over reality, when both are brought into clear focus.

Imagine a world in which everybody did this...wait, it's already headed that way.
What do you think you One Worlders have been doing for far longer. You can certainly dish it out, and then run to your safe rooms when it comes back to you.
 

Ron Scarboro

Member
GT40s Supporter
Bobby,
Please specifically identify and reference any specific "failed" predictions. That would allow the other side of this argument to post specific evidence they believe supports such predictions. Then the merits of that support can be debated.

I'm trying to hold onto the idea that you're a passionate advocate for something in this debate and not just a TROLL. However, in reviewing your posts in this thread I confess to being a bit challenged to figure out what specific beliefs you actually hold.

Assuming you have such beliefs, perhaps after 110 pages of this thread you should repost your position.
 
Bobby,
Please specifically identify and reference any specific "failed" predictions. That would allow the other side of this argument to post specific evidence they believe supports such predictions. Then the merits of that support can be debated.

I'm trying to hold onto the idea that you're a passionate advocate for something in this debate and not just a TROLL. However, in reviewing your posts in this thread I confess to being a bit challenged to figure out what specific beliefs you actually hold.

Assuming you have such beliefs, perhaps after 110 pages of this thread you should repost your position.
Ronny, the title of this thread, which I coined all those years ago says it all, “More Global/Cooling/Warming/Change Hoax. That covers decades of failed predictions. I believe the description of this catastrophic threat to our world keeps changing because it is a hoax designed to extort uncountable trillions of dollars from the United States. It would be much easier for you to list all their predictions which came true, than for me to list the myriad failed predictions of the One Worlders.
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump International Golf Links sought to build a seawall to protect a golf course he owns in Ireland from “global warming and its effects.”

In a permit application for the wall, Trump International Golf Links cited scientific studies indicating that a rise in sea level could result in damaging erosion in a bay near the golf course.

“If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct ... it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland,” the application says. “In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. ... As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase.”

Please note the last two sentences, and who would of thought applying the judging criteria of some President Trump is a lefty One Worlder failed predictor, who was trying to extort uncountable Euros from the Irish government ?
 
Last edited:

Ron Scarboro

Member
GT40s Supporter
Bobby,
It is always dangerous to feed a TROLL, but here goes. I looked through the thread and couldn’t find any specific prediction you’ve referenced that I could do some quick research.

So I googled “Global Warming Predictions and got this one with an attached conclusion:

30 years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.

Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.

The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.

57F10D9A-6917-4B94-BE7B-86B483712DC8.png


I did have a quick look at the math in the various scenarios and it supports the conclusion. That isn’t saying that the prediction is accurate, but the difference in CFCs would support the reduction from .84C to .6C

I found that in a quick search, so I researched Scenario B as that seems to be the one that Hansen specifically referenced in his subsequent writings the most. I found 3 “Opinion” writings that refuted the above findings, but provided NO support for the objection. Further I found 3 other refuting opinion/articles, but they referenced the wrong scenario, or had obvious analysis and/or reference errors (for example, one quoted increases in greenhouse gasses that were simply not supported by the data of a number of independent websites, or used Scenario A, when the growth in greenhouse gasses are aligned with Scenario B).

I then went to data driven websites to support or refute the conclusion as outlined below:

Temperature Rise -
Since you referenced the US, I looked for some other supportive data and found this specific to the US.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it’s-warming-everywhere

Seems to support the Scenario B prediction...

Here is another:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

Seems to support the Scenario B prediction...

Greenhouse Gasses in the math of the prediction -
This is a simple explanation of the reason greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming.
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Basic chemistry. Atmospheric Methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas:

Here is a graph of atmospheric methane plotted over time:
https://www.methanelevels.org

I think this is ONE prediction that has seemed to come true. I don’t know if James Hansen is a “One Worlder” or a “Warmer”, so technically not sure if this satisfies your challenge or not.

If you have any specific predictions, I’m happy to look into them.

Kind regards,


Ronny
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
Guys:
(1) MMCC/GW proponent's "scientific facts", "figures" and "statistics" have on numerous occasions been SHOWN to have been altered, "adjusted" for this-and-that, OR JUST PLAIN 'FUDGED' to provide 'confirmation' that MMCC/GW is alive and well.
(2) W/o CO2 in the atmosphere every plant on the planet would DIE...and, therefore, so would WE.
(3) If Yellowstone were to 'blow' (and one day it WILL...not to mention countless others) - the GADZILLIONS of dollars spent on CC/GW "solutions" will INSTANTLY have been for not.
(4) The best "scientific" guess is the aforementioned "gadzillians" spent might, at best, provide 1/4th of a degree of cooling via CO2-lowering/'greenie' measures in 100 years. Maybe.
(5) OAC says we only have 12 years to reverse MMCC/GW or it's 'adios compadres'.

"Sooooooo", ( to paraphrase Al Sleet, your hippy-dippy weatherman), I wouldn't sweat the MMCC/GW thing [thunder showers])." ;-)

 
I’m intimidated by all the scholarly discourse, for about three seconds, but let us ignore the little man behind the curtain, and remember that all this scientific data has been altered to fit the Nostradamus Science Hoax of the Flat Earth One Worlders.
 

Ron Scarboro

Member
GT40s Supporter
Bobby,
Huh?, what? Now you’re just stringing together nonsensical words. You do your side of the argument a great disservice. I’d ask for actual facts to back any of that up, but I know better.

Don’t feed the TROLLS.

As-salāmu ʿalaykum,

Ronny
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
Guys:

(1) MMCC/GW proponent's "scientific facts", "figures" and "statistics" have on numerous occasions been SHOWN to have been altered, "adjusted" for this-and-that, OR JUST PLAIN 'FUDGED' to provide 'confirmation' that MMCC/GW is alive and well.
Larry

This present round of "discussion" started with my post showing how David Attenborough was initially sceptical about climate change, was cautious about crying wolf, but after long and careful consideration of both sides of the argument was no longer sceptical for a number of reasons, one of the main ones being after attending a Ralph J. Cicerone lecture on the subject

I have done a little research on Ralph and this is some of what I found.

Cicerone led a key NAS study of climate change requested by President George W. Bush in 2001. The study panel included climate sceptics, but the report was unanimous and unequivocal that greenhouse gases were building up in the atmosphere because of human activities and causing temperatures to rise. Under his leadership, the NAS also produced a comprehensive, authoritative set of reports in 2011 titled America's Climate Choices. These called for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions and identified strategies.

You also appear to be repeatedly using the following argument / theories, this time against Ralph Cicerone.

MMCC/GW proponent's "scientific facts", "figures" and "statistics" have on numerous occasions been SHOWN to have been altered.
So as Ralph Cicerone is a MMCC/GW who uses scientific facts and figures, Ralph Cicerone’s facts and figures must have been altered.

At no point can I find any evidence that Ralph Cicerone used manipulated data in his lectures if he has Larry please can you show me where.

If you can’t then you like Bob, are using Ad Hominem fallacious argumentative strategies. Yours because of guilt by association as the example above clearly shows.

Bob’s arguments are repeatedly just plain Ad hominem whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself, example.

Sir David Attenborough, another pompous windbag of the left. Who cares what this Jurassic Journalist spouts off about?
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
"You also appear to be repeatedly using the following argument / THEORIES, this time against Ralph Cicerone."

I have no idea WHO Ralph Cicerone is. 'Doesn't matter. 'Wasn't REFERRING specifically to him or his specific "arguments". You simply chose to 'spin' my comment that way. I was 'speaking' of the "scientific" basis upon which MMCC/GW has been based in general from the get-go...things like recording temp readings at a station that was ORIGINALLY in a farmer's field, but, NOW is surrounded by buildings, glass, blacktop and concrete...but, not factoring THAT into the higher temps being recorded there today. (BTW, MMCC/GW itself is only a "theory".)

It's a waste of time to provide a list of "facts" from climate change deniers. The PRO-CC crowd will simply dismiss 'em as being the rantings of "SCIENCE DENIERS". You can go to Google/DuckDuckGo, etc., and find the denier's "evidence" for yourself. There are endless examples of less-than-honest data/data gathering done by the pro-CC/GW crew. And for each of THOSE - you can find an equal number of people who'll tell you the opposite is true.

THE BOTTOM LINE to all the ENDLESS back-and-forth on MMCC/GM is what I alluded to above:

(3) If Yellowstone (a volcano) were to 'blow' (and one day it WILL...not to mention countless other [volcanoes]) - the GADZILLIONS of dollars spent on CC/GW "solutions" will INSTANTLY have been for not.
(4) The best "scientific" guess is the aforementioned "gadzillians" spent might, at best, provide 1/4th of a degree of cooling via CO2-lowering/'greenie' measures in 100 years. Maybe. (Hardly worth the MASSIVE, CRUSHING expense.)

...to which can be added the inarguable F-A-C-T that, as a practical matter, bankrupting the USA with an avalanche of EPA rules/regs, et al, will do nothing to reverse MMCC/GW in any measurable way by itself (if anything man does in that regard ever will.) Unless and until China, India, Indonesia and the rest of the usual suspects are subject to the same "rules" nothing really can change. So WHY DO IT 'solo'?

.
 
Last edited:

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
GT40s Supporter
"(3) If Yellowstone (a volcano) were to 'blow' (and one day it WILL...not to mention countless other [volcanoes]) - the GADZILLIONS of dollars spent on CC/GW "solutions" will INSTANTLY have been for not."

Hmmm, I'm curious why this catastrophic risk hasn't been jumped on by conspiracy theorist as well. Surely some energy could be spent to find someone wanting to take advantage of the population's vast wealth for this as well. Perhaps a "Yellowstone Blow Hoax" string.

I can see a future where the deniers will eventually see the light of truth, and then morph their arguments to "well, it's too late to do anything about it, so why spend the money to fix it". Unfortunately, with the situation where big business has gradually more and more power over legislation than the vast majority of the population, we will continue down a road that has led to turning our heads on global problems because those in power don't share the same personal risks as 97% of the rest of the world.
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
"(3) If Yellowstone (a volcano) were to 'blow' (and one day it WILL...not to mention countless other [volcanoes]) - the GADZILLIONS of dollars spent on CC/GW "solutions" will INSTANTLY have been for not."

Hmmm, I'm curious why this catastrophic risk hasn't been jumped on by conspiracy theorist as well. Surely some energy could be spent to find someone wanting to take advantage of the population's vast wealth for this as well. Perhaps a "Yellowstone Blow Hoax" string.

I can see a future where the deniers will eventually see the light of truth, and then morph their arguments to "well, it's too late to do anything about it, so why spend the money to fix it". Unfortunately, with the situation where big business has gradually more and more power over legislation than the vast majority of the population, we will continue down a road that has led to turning our heads on global problems because those in power don't share the same personal risks as 97% of the rest of the world.
The "Green New Deal" (Google it) that's s-e-r-i-o-u-s-l-y being pushed by A.O.-C. and many on the faaaaaaaaaaaaar left over here these days shows you where all this MMCC/GW overreaching could actually lead one day. 'Not good.

"Far-fetched alarmist claptrap", you say? It wasn't all that long ago that the left started PUSHING for "gay marriage"...and we all KNOW how that turned out, don't we.
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
GT40s Supporter
Yeah, the whole pushing for gay marriage thing. A travesty...along with the results of pushing women's right to vote (or any number of rights we enjoy today).

I get it guys. No one here is going to be swayed by proper and accepted studies, or "alternalte" studies. There will always be a small minority that still thinks there is no harm in smoking, that the grassy knoll is still waiting to tell it's story, and that man didn't land on the moon. So I'm out of this echo chamber for a while again.
 
Top