cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

954 posts in this topic

21 hours ago, cobran20 said:

It is whatever that comes out of the publishing of the IPCC. But can you confirm that is still their current forecast for the next five years so that it can be compared to actuals ... just like their forecasts over the last 30 years? Because almost 20 years ago they said snow will be history and we have the actuals. So when will snow disappear now ... another 20, 50 100, 1000 years?

So these outcomes are scientifically consistent with snow becoming history and globull warming. Interesting...

Snow brings parts of Europe to standstill

Quote

"Such quantities of snow above 800m altitude only happen once every 30 to 100 years," said Alexander Radlherr from Austria's Central Institution for Meteorology and Geodynamics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC,

Attached are extracts from what the snake oil salesman wrote on YTE magazine. One page is from an article published in Oct 2009 (date at bottom of page). The other 3 from June 2018. The 2009 is not the full article to confirm the dates & predictions made. But the 2018 pages have specific projections & dates. This is similar to what Armstrong provides.

Can we get something similar from IPCC & Co? It makes it easy to then verify accuracy.

49370399_377460156151277_6764695000119771136_n.jpg

49949044_377460239484602_8854919089022304256_n.jpg

50022302_377460096151283_5119671681928921088_n.jpg

50553671_377460252817934_4266718136453038080_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More dissident scientists questioning the mantra. That's a long list at the bottom of the article. The author seems to have qualifications on the subject matter as well.

Quote

Irish scientist and meteorology professor Ray Bates that the recent IPCC report should not be regarded by policymakers as ‘a scientifically rigorous document’. Bates accused the UN body of failing to pass on recent evidence indicating a greater contribution from ‘natural variability to explain observed global temperature trends’.

Are they all paid by the fossil fuel industry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/02/2019 at 8:45 AM, cobran20 said:

SC,

Attached are extracts from what the snake oil salesman wrote on YTE magazine. One page is from an article published in Oct 2009 (date at bottom of page). The other 3 from June 2018. The 2009 is not the full article to confirm the dates & predictions made. But the 2018 pages have specific projections & dates. This is similar to what Armstrong provides.

Can we get something similar from IPCC & Co? It makes it easy to then verify accuracy.

49370399_377460156151277_6764695000119771136_n.jpg

49949044_377460239484602_8854919089022304256_n.jpg

50022302_377460096151283_5119671681928921088_n.jpg

50553671_377460252817934_4266718136453038080_n.jpg

I'm glad you asked. Here's a link going back to the early seventies with predictions versus observations. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, staringclown said:

I'm glad you asked. Here's a link going back to the early seventies with predictions versus observations. 

 

 

So why are they so terrible with their forecasts? As you would know, the consensus of the best possible science in the 1970's was global freezing, which was all over the news. If you read this link, you will see a posting that even in 1986, James Hansen from NASA was predicting an increase of 3-4 degrees by 2020. Also, as I have already posted, late last year NOAA forecasted a mild winter, which even Goebbels would now struggle to claim otherwise.

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cobran20 said:

So why are they so terrible with their forecasts? As you would know, the consensus of the best possible science in the 1970's was global freezing, which was all over the news. If you read this link, you will see a posting that even in 1986, James Hansen from NASA was predicting an increase of 3-4 degrees by 2020. Also, as I have already posted, late last year NOAA forecasted a mild winter, which even Goebbels would now struggle to claim otherwise.

The consensus was not global freezing at all. It is a myth and one which you seem to enjoy perpetuating.

They are not terrible as the animation shows. Here's a link to the Hansen et al (1988) paper rather than some newspaper article. The article has the chart cited in the animation showing ~0.5-1.5 degree rise depending on the scenario (page # 9347). I don't know what paper the newspaper articles are referring to. Can you provide a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

The consensus was not global freezing at all. It is a myth and one which you seem to enjoy perpetuating.

They are not terrible as the animation shows. Here's a link to the Hansen et al (1988) paper rather than some newspaper article. The article has the chart cited in the animation showing ~0.5-1.5 degree rise depending on the scenario (page # 9347). I don't know what paper the newspaper articles are referring to. Can you provide a link?

A myth that I like to perpetuate did you say? 

Newsweek 28/4/1975

A collection of articles

The above I'm sure I have already posted previously on this thread, as well as a YouTube link to a documentary about it, based of the 'best available' science, which I saw on TV at the time.

Globull cooling at the time was regular news, not as much as the current globull warming hysteria, but regular nevertheless. At least at that time, governments were not as gullible as they are now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cobran20 said:

A myth that I like to perpetuate did you say? 

Newsweek 28/4/1975

A collection of articles

The above I'm sure I have already posted previously on this thread, as well as a YouTube link to a documentary about it, based of the 'best available' science, which I saw on TV at the time.

Globull cooling at the time was regular news, not as much as the current globull warming hysteria, but regular nevertheless. At least at that time, governments were not as gullible as they are now.

 

 

Yep. If all you have is newsworthy headlines then you are ignoring the scientific consensus. I honestly don't understand why this is a difficult concept for you.

So, do you have the Hansen 1986 link? Of course you don't. You're all about FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). You're a dinosaur. As you descend into oblivion, can I ask a personal question? Why do you persist? Do you have a shareholding? I get why the corporates involved misinform. Why you? Sheer bloody mindedness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cobran20 said:

A myth that I like to perpetuate did you say? 

Newsweek 28/4/1975

A collection of articles

The above I'm sure I have already posted previously on this thread, as well as a YouTube link to a documentary about it, based of the 'best available' science, which I saw on TV at the time.

Globull cooling at the time was regular news, not as much as the current globull warming hysteria, but regular nevertheless. At least at that time, governments were not as gullible as they are now.

 

 

Yeah, it was decided that you were a wanker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, staringclown said:

Yeah, it was decided that you were a wanker.

Mr Zealot does not like being challenged. What a surprise? I better up the ante then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, staringclown said:

Yep. If all you have is newsworthy headlines then you are ignoring the scientific consensus. I honestly don't understand why this is a difficult concept for you.

So, do you have the Hansen 1986 link? Of course you don't. You're all about FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). You're a dinosaur. As you descend into oblivion, can I ask a personal question? Why do you persist? Do you have a shareholding? I get why the corporates involved misinform. Why you? Sheer bloody mindedness?

Here is the link to that article. 

Why do I persist - because this is having a major economic impact around the world, for highly questionable reasons. The accuracy of your 'settled science' has been so good, that they had to change the theory from globull warming to climate change to cover all bases. Your recent responses are suggesting that you are having troubles with what the world weather is throwing at your beloved theory. Like the globull freezing of 50 years ago, the latest is most likely to be condemned to the bin of history, except that probably nobody will be held accountable for the waste that has occurred this time.

Remember that 5 year bet as I won't forget!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, staringclown said:

Yep. If all you have is newsworthy headlines then you are ignoring the scientific consensus. I honestly don't understand why this is a difficult concept for you.

So, do you have the Hansen 1986 link? Of course you don't. You're all about FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). You're a dinosaur. As you descend into oblivion, can I ask a personal question? Why do you persist? Do you have a shareholding? I get why the corporates involved misinform. Why you? Sheer bloody mindedness?

Cobran thinks journalists are scientists. The scary thing for me is watching him over the years pick up all the dishonest debating techniques that basically boil down to "If I lie enough and ignore the refuting of those lies and repeat them then I win" which seem to have enamoured enough of the populace that people like Trump can get away with their crap.

He's a good case study and I keep reading his silliness to remind myself not to go into the "scary liberal bubble".

I have no doubt he keeps supporting the stance because he is scared of what is happening and adopting that stance makes him feel safer (plus maybe a little superior).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tor said:

Cobran thinks journalists are scientists. The scary thing for me is watching him over the years pick up all the dishonest debating techniques that basically boil down to "If I lie enough and ignore the refuting of those lies and repeat them then I win" which seem to have enamoured enough of the populace that people like Trump can get away with their crap.

He's a good case study and I keep reading his silliness to remind myself not to go into the "scary liberal bubble".

I have no doubt he keeps supporting the stance because he is scared of what is happening and adopting that stance makes him feel safer (plus maybe a little superior).

 

Thanks for the diatribe. But I'm putting skin in the game on who will be correct. Are you and how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, staringclown said:

Yep. If all you have is newsworthy headlines then you are ignoring the scientific consensus. I honestly don't understand why this is a difficult concept for you.

So, do you have the Hansen 1986 link? Of course you don't. You're all about FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). You're a dinosaur. As you descend into oblivion, can I ask a personal question? Why do you persist? Do you have a shareholding? I get why the corporates involved misinform. Why you? Sheer bloody mindedness?

How I love synchronicity

Al Gore’s Global Warming Deliberate Fraud to Increase Governmental Power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Mr Zealot does not like being challenged. What a surprise? I better up the ante then.

Have no fear I have awarded myself warning points for that post and sent myself a message that if this drunken posting continues I will be banning myself from the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tor said:

Cobran thinks journalists are scientists. The scary thing for me is watching him over the years pick up all the dishonest debating techniques that basically boil down to "If I lie enough and ignore the refuting of those lies and repeat them then I win" which seem to have enamoured enough of the populace that people like Trump can get away with their crap.

He's a good case study and I keep reading his silliness to remind myself not to go into the "scary liberal bubble".

I have no doubt he keeps supporting the stance because he is scared of what is happening and adopting that stance makes him feel safer (plus maybe a little superior).

 

Good observations. Just like Trump he doesn't seem to want to answer any direct questions. Like "Has snowfall decreased in the UK?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Here is the link to that article. 

Why do I persist - because this is having a major economic impact around the world, for highly questionable reasons. The accuracy of your 'settled science' has been so good, that they had to change the theory from globull warming to climate change to cover all bases. Your recent responses are suggesting that you are having troubles with what the world weather is throwing at your beloved theory. Like the globull freezing of 50 years ago, the latest is most likely to be condemned to the bin of history, except that probably nobody will be held accountable for the waste that has occurred this time.

Remember that 5 year bet as I won't forget!

Again, the link is to an article. Not to the direct quotes of what Hansen said. The bit of cursory research reveals that the article is based on testimony Hansen gave to the US senate. The link is to the 1988 testimony which Hansen says is pretty much identical to 1986. The predictions he made in his testimony were for a rise ranging from 0.5C to 1.5C dependent on three scenarios. Scenario A was business as usual, Scenario B was with cuts to trace gases (cuts to chlorofluorocarbons) and scenario C drastic cuts to CO2. Below is a chart for scenario B. The Montreal protocol dealt with CFC cuts. BTW the 2-4 degree rises in your article/s were in Fahrenheit cos that's what the US uses. His chart in the link to his paper I posted above shows the same as below. Pretty much spot on.

1406.png?width=620&quality=45&auto=forma

The reason you are sh*tting me is because you post newspaper articles headlines referring to other newspaper articles headlines with the original article no longer available to be viewed. You regard this as evidence. It isn't. It's just ridiculous. Go to source if you want to be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

Again, the link is to an article. Not to the direct quotes of what Hansen said. The bit of cursory research reveals that the article is based on testimony Hansen gave to the US senate. The link is to the 1988 testimony which Hansen says is pretty much identical to 1986. The predictions he made in his testimony were for a rise ranging from 0.5C to 1.5C dependent on three scenarios. Scenario A was business as usual, Scenario B was with cuts to trace gases (cuts to chlorofluorocarbons) and scenario C drastic cuts to CO2. Below is a chart for scenario B. The Montreal protocol dealt with CFC cuts. BTW the 2-4 degree rises in your article/s were in Fahrenheit cos that's what the US uses. His chart in the link to his paper I posted above shows the same as below. Pretty much spot on.

1406.png?width=620&quality=45&auto=forma

The reason you are sh*tting me is because you post newspaper articles headlines referring to other newspaper articles headlines with the original article no longer available to be viewed. You regard this as evidence. It isn't. It's just ridiculous. Go to source if you want to be taken seriously.

1 hour ago, staringclown said:

Again, the link is to an article. Not to the direct quotes of what Hansen said. The bit of cursory research reveals that the article is based on testimony Hansen gave to the US senate. The link is to the 1988 testimony which Hansen says is pretty much identical to 1986. The predictions he made in his testimony were for a rise ranging from 0.5C to 1.5C dependent on three scenarios. Scenario A was business as usual, Scenario B was with cuts to trace gases (cuts to chlorofluorocarbons) and scenario C drastic cuts to CO2. Below is a chart for scenario B. The Montreal protocol dealt with CFC cuts. BTW the 2-4 degree rises in your article/s were in Fahrenheit cos that's what the US uses. His chart in the link to his paper I posted above shows the same as below. Pretty much spot on.

1406.png?width=620&quality=45&auto=forma

The reason you are sh*tting me is because you post newspaper articles headlines referring to other newspaper articles headlines with the original article no longer available to be viewed. You regard this as evidence. It isn't. It's just ridiculous. Go to source if you want to be taken seriously.

Fair enough. Give me the latest IPCC forecasts of what they expect to occur for the rest of the year, next 5 years, even decade.

We know what one of their scientists forecasted for this northern winter. You can claim it has been a mild winter, the temperature and snow records to the downside in North America, UK and many Europe makes me want to strongly differ. Like Armstrong (and Inigo) please publish the specific short & medium term forecasts (more or no snow, heavy frosts, heat waves in the middle of winter - whatever they are forecasting). Specifics please, similar to their forecasts from about 20 years ago when it was still called global warming. BTW, why was the name of the theory changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 9:57 AM, tor said:

Cobran thinks journalists are scientists. ...

They are not, but they quote scientists instead. Another treasure trove here. You will see that even a letter sent to POTUS dated 3/12/1972. Yet there was no hysteria about globull freezing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 9:06 PM, cobran20 said:

Fair enough. Give me the latest IPCC forecasts of what they expect to occur for the rest of the year, next 5 years, even decade.

We know what one of their scientists forecasted for this northern winter. You can claim it has been a mild winter, the temperature and snow records to the downside in North America, UK and many Europe makes me want to strongly differ. Like Armstrong (and Inigo) please publish the specific short & medium term forecasts (more or no snow, heavy frosts, heat waves in the middle of winter - whatever they are forecasting). Specifics please, similar to their forecasts from about 20 years ago when it was still called global warming. BTW, why was the name of the theory changed?

Since you're struggling to find new specific forecasts from the IPCC & Co, let's go to a local from the BoM:

NSW set for a hotter than average autumn

This is similar to the wet & mild winter  predicted for the US in October last year.

We'll review the BoM's prediction in early winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again with newspaper articles. Do I have to do another flood of google alerts to show you how silly you are being? If you are going to measure what the BoM is saying you have to link to where they are saying it. Without even reading the newspaper article I can guarantee there will be no methodology and so you are left arguing over what the journalist was predicting and how that was going to be measured.

 

You say the US had a cold winter because they had a few days

Staring clown say they had a mild winter because they had more hot records than cold by a factor of 2

Neither of which address what the journalist at apnews was saying would happen.

 

And if you are constantly going to claim superior accuracy by your astrologers over the journalists at least try and have a prediction from each in a post where you are trying to compare them. Otherwise you are going to look like every other astrologer fan and cherry pick your predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tor said:

Again with newspaper articles. Do I have to do another flood of google alerts to show you how silly you are being? If you are going to measure what the BoM is saying you have to link to where they are saying it. Without even reading the newspaper article I can guarantee there will be no methodology and so you are left arguing over what the journalist was predicting and how that was going to be measured.

 

You say the US had a cold winter because they had a few days

Staring clown say they had a mild winter because they had more hot records than cold by a factor of 2

Neither of which address what the journalist at apnews was saying would happen.

 

And if you are constantly going to claim superior accuracy by your astrologers over the journalists at least try and have a prediction from each in a post where you are trying to compare them. Otherwise you are going to look like every other astrologer fan and cherry pick your predictions.

So a newspaper that quotes a spokesperson for the BoM is fake news? How exactly?

I'm not saying the US had a cold winter. I'm saying all of North America, US, UK and Europe are having anything but a mild winter. I take that you don't bother to check. So let me do all the hard work for you - check here, herehere and here. All current reports. Presumably you already read the ones during January. I could go one, but if you don't get the point why bother. Just stick your head back in the sand and go back to dreaming of wearing a Hawaiian shirt in winter in Poland!

The thing that sh!ts me to no end is that we're being told that temps are increasing, yet the logical forecast of what should be happening is not going to plan.

So why? Only limited options as I see it - either the models are wrong and/or the data or we're being fed BS. There is no shortage of qualified scientists questioning globull warming. I'd love to see a list of all scientists for and against the theory and who is buttering their bread. My monies are on all the pro globull warming being highly dependent on government/US research monies. As far as being told BS, this was stated before a U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.

The IPCC & Associates need to be held to account for forcing a global change in energy sources based on their theories. If their theory is not 'stable' and providing predictability of outcome, then why is the world being financially fleeced? Have you not noticed the Yellow Vest movement that is going global? Macaroon tried to hike petrol prices to combat globull warming (but really to get more tax monies) and was told to f@ck off in no uncertain terms. As Europe freezes, it is becoming evident to the masses what globull warming represents.

So yes, I will continue to match the IPCC & Associates' forecasts (which includes the BoM) vs dissidents who say the opposite. It is basic practice of accountability.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad monies were put to good use:

10/11/2008

Quote

The Maldives will begin to divert a portion of the country's billion-dollar annual tourist revenue into buying a new homeland - as an insurance policy against climate change that threatens to turn the 300,000 islanders into environmental refugees, the country's first democratically elected president has told the Guardian.

Mohamed Nasheed, who takes power officially tomorrow in the island's capital, Male, said the chain of 1,200 island and coral atolls dotted 500 miles from the tip of India is likely to disappear under the waves if the current pace of climate change continues to raise sea levels.

The UN forecasts that the seas are likely to rise by up to 59cm by 2100, due to global warming. Most parts of the Maldives are just 1.5m above water. The president said even a "small rise" in sea levels would inundate large parts of the archipelago.

7/2/2019

Quote

Police in the Maldives have asked the country's prosecutor general to charge a former president with money laundering and his former Cabinet minister with aiding him

So by how much have sea levels risen around The Maldives, since 2008?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now