Yet observed science is following along the lines of RCP 2.5 and not from the unlikely RCP 8.5 which all the alarmism is created from. The government report in question even goes farther than the IPCC in their temperature forecast by almost doubling the top end the IPCC reports and uses that for all the doom and gloom. It is claimed that this will affect the GDP negatively by 10%, with no proof. The report is folly.
Last edited by Hoosier8; 12-05-2018 at 04:46 PM.
When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.
When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.
And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
No, they're matching 4.5 and 6.0, which is what is closest to actual emissions. That is, the models have been excellent. Anyone familiar with the real science knows that, so the lies of your political/religious cult won't fool them.
Remember, the ratinoal side has credibilty because we've earned it by getting everything right for the past 40 years. Similarly, your side has no crediblity, because you've failed continuously for those past 40 years.
Another false claim. The reports summarize all the scenarios. Claiming they focus solely on 8.5 is a lie.and not from the unlikely RCP 8.5 which all the alarmism is created from.
So by your logic, anything the Trump admin publishes is fake, because it was paid for by the government.
But then, it's expected that you fail at logic, because people who can reason properly don't get sucked into your political/religious cult in the first place.
Again, all the bribe money goes to your side, so your side has no cred. Our side rejects the bribe money, giving us more cred.
Safety (12-09-2018)
The models are excellent. If your political/religious cult told you otherwise, then they lied to you. The long term predictions were for 0.20C/decade warming, and we've seen 0.19C/decade warming.
However, the success of the models is just icing on the cake. The directly measured hard data proves the human origin of the current global warming. We directly measure the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands. There is no natural explanation for those measurements, so all "It's part of a natural cycle!" theories are wrong.
At this stage, the best you can do is "Well, humans are causing it, but not that much!". After that defensive position crumbles, you can fall back to "Well, humans are causing a lot of warming, but it's beneficial", and then finally to "Well, we're causing it, and it's bad, but oh well there's nothing we can do about it now, and that's your fault because you forced us to oppose you by being so mean."
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Peter1469 (12-08-2018)
"The models"
"The predictions"
There have been all sorts of predictions and all sorts of models. So, what, exactly, are you referring to?
Are you referring to "the models" that failed to predict the recent pause in global warming? Or are you referring to models like Michael Mann's "hockey stick", which was shown to be a total fraud?
You don't "prove" a hypothesis in science. And there have been many explanations offered involving natural cycles.However, the success of the models is just icing on the cake. The directly measured hard data proves the human origin of the current global warming. We directly measure the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands. There is no natural explanation for those measurements, so all "It's part of a natural cycle!" theories are wrong.
All I have to do is to keep pointing out the facts.At this stage, the best you can do is "Well, humans are causing it, but not that much!". After that defensive position crumbles, you can fall back to "Well, humans are causing a lot of warming, but it's beneficial", and then finally to "Well, we're causing it, and it's bad, but oh well there's nothing we can do about it now, and that's your fault because you forced us to oppose you by being so mean."
Fact: You don't "prove" hypotheses, so your claim that the "human origin of current global warming" was proved is scientifically baseless.
Fact: Models can be useful, but they are not evidence. And a model is only as good as its inputs. Otherwise, garbage in, garbage out.
Fact: Many scientists have offered up explanations involving natural cycles.
Fact: Many mainstream climate modelers failed to predict the recent pause in global warming.
Good luck trying to get around basic facts.
Last edited by Ethereal; 12-08-2018 at 08:27 PM.
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
Peter1469 (12-08-2018)
When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.
When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.
And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
MisterVeritis (12-08-2018)
I just saw a little news blurb that said it was ten years ago today that Al Gore said that the Nothern polar ice cap would be completely gone in five years.
I haven't been that far north to see it for myself, but I believe it's still there and bigger now than it was then.
MisterVeritis (12-15-2018),Peter1469 (12-14-2018)