Donald Trump running for president

ax1 said:
Introducing the global warming speedometer

 A single devastating graph shows official climate predictions were wild

 By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

 The new global warming speedometer shows in a single telling graph just how badly the model-based predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have over-predicted global warming.

Invalid Link RemovedInvalid Link Removed​

The speedometer for the 15 years 4 months January 2001 to April 2016 shows the [1.1, 4.2] C°/century-equivalent interval of global warming rates (red/orange) that IPCC’s 1990, 1995 and 2001 reports predicted should be occurring by now, compared with real-world, observed warming (green) equivalent to less than 0.5 C°/century over the period.

Observed reality

​
RSS and UAH monthly near-global satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly values for each month from January 2001 to April 2016 were assumed to be broadly accurate and were averaged. The least-squares linear-regression trend on their mean was determined and found equivalent to 0.47 C°/century.

 Predictions in IPCC’s Assessment Reports

 IPCC (2007, 2013) are too recent to allow reliable comparison of their predictions against reality.

 IPCC (2001), on page 8, predicted that in the 36 years 1990-2025 the world would warm by 0.75 [0.4, 1.1] C°, equivalent to 2.1 [1.1, 3.1] C°/century. This predicted interval is 4.5 [2.3, 6.6] times observed warming since January 2001.

 IPCC (1995), at fig. 6.13, assuming the subsequently-observed 0.5%-per-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, predicted a medium-term warming rate a little below 0.4 C° over 21 years, equivalent to 1.8 C°/century, or 3.8 times observed warming since January 2001.

 IPCC (1990), at page xxiv, predicted near-linear global warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] C° over the 36 years to 2025, a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] C°/century. This predicted interval is 6.0 [4.0, 8.9] times observed warming since January 2001.
Conclusion​

Fifteen years is long enough to verify the predictions from IPCC’s first three Assessment Reports against real-world temperature change measured by the most sophisticated method available – satellites.

The visible discrepancy between wild predictions and harmless reality since January 2001 demonstrates that the major climate models on which governments have relied in setting their mitigation policies are unfit for their purpose. Removing the exaggerations inbuilt into the models eradicates the supposed climate problem.

 The real-world evidence shows that global warming mitigation policies are based on predictions now exposed as having been flagrantly and baselessly exaggerated.

All global-warming mitigation policies should be forthwith abandoned and their heavy cost returned at once to taxpayers by way of cuts in energy taxes and charges.

Industries such as coal mining and generation should be fully compensated for the needless loss and damage that ill-considered government policies inflicted on them.

Subsidies for global warming research should be ended and IPCC dissolved.
Click to expand...

Oh no, not LORD Monckton.....LOL. Where is the UN after taking over the US? What about the communist world government? That guy is an UBER nutjob. C'mon, man.

He also thinks scientists should have to belong to a religion to practice.
 
ax1 said:
That sounds racist.
Click to expand...

LOL, OK. The guy is literally insane IMO. Claims to be a Lord, but isn't. Claims to have peer-reviewed papers, but doesn't. Claimed to have won a Nobel prize, but said he was joking when confronted. He's a homophobe, wants to ban the Quran, claimed to be on Margaret Thatcher's scientific advisor, but wasn't, etc.

I mean, have you ever looked at this guy's background?
 
Misfit28 said:
LOL, OK. The guy is literally insane IMO. Claims to be a Lord, but isn't. Claims to have peer-reviewed papers, but doesn't. Claimed to have won a Nobel prize, but said he was joking when confronted. He's a homophobe, wants to ban the Quran, claimed to be on Margaret Thatcher's scientific advisor, but wasn't, etc.

I mean, have you ever looked at this guy's background?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah right, I can instantly tell you know nothing about him.

If you want to side with his opposition that is plotting world government, bankrupting 3rd world nations and knowingly are knowingly hiding scientific data from the public and many other scientists in order to ram their agenda down the throats of civilization based of lies be my guest.
 
ax1 said:
Oh yeah right, I can instantly tell you know nothing about him.

If you want to side with his opposition that is plotting world government, bankrupting 3rd world nations and knowingly are knowingly hiding scientific data from the public and many other scientists in order to ram their agenda down the throats of civilization based of lies be my guest.
Click to expand...

Oh, I've read plenty about him. You don't know these things?

Homophobia:

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Nobel claim:

Invalid Link Removed

Banning the Quran:

Invalid Link Removed

there is so much crap, I could spend all day and still not get it all. VERY reputable scientists have torn him apart, as he plagiarizes reports, dresses up in traditional Arab garb while passing out climate change denial leaflets, and other such nonsensical things.

Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
If you want to side with his opposition that is plotting world government, bankrupting 3rd world nations and knowingly are knowingly hiding scientific data from the public and many other scientists in order to ram their agenda down the throats of civilization based of lies be my guest.
Click to expand...
As I've said before it's as clear as the nose on their face. They're not blind, they just can't or won't see.

What do you call a conspiracy to disguise a conspiracy? Why do people fall for the anti conspiracy conspiracy?
 
David Dunn said:
As I've said before it's as clear as the nose on their face. They're not blind, they just can't or won't see.

What do you call a conspiracy to disguise a conspiracy? Why do people fall for the anti conspiracy conspiracy?
Click to expand...

Because they can critically evaluate scientific evidence?

I find it pretty laughable that climate deniers think they are so much more intelligent than highly trained scientists.
 
I dont really care about homophobes and people wanting to ban the quran to be honest. I dont support that but people have a right to feel that way. It has nothing to do with climate change change. Your resorting to character attacks rather than the specific subject at hand.
 
ax1 said:
I dont really care about homophobes and people wanting to ban the quran to be honest. I dont support that but people have a right to feel that way. It has nothing to do with climate change change. Your resorting to character attacks rather than the specific subject at hand.
Click to expand...

So, you want me to delve into the ridiculous and very debunkable claims of "Lord" Monckton? Where should I begin, "Climategate"?

I'm not resorting to character attacks when he was actually found to have said and done such things. Here we go again, with me wasting time on finding evidence for you that you will instantly refute.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Misfit28 said:
So, you want me to delve into the ridiculous and very debunkable claims of "Lord" Monckton? Where should I begin, "Climategate"?

I'm not resorting to character attacks when he was actually found to have said and done such things. Here we go again, with me wasting time on finding evidence for you that you will instantly refute.
Click to expand...

Just like when we proved Margarat Sanger, Hitleries idol created planned parenthood to reduce the black population and it had no influence on you, I can post billions of articles supporting that man made climate change is far beyond conclusive and it will be debunked by factcheck.org or something by you. Its endless.
 
Misfit28 said:
Because they can critically evaluate scientific evidence?

I find it pretty laughable that climate deniers think they are so much more intelligent than highly trained scientists.
Click to expand...
scientific evidence can be biased and just like anything else if it biased toward you preconceived persuasion it must be the truth.

I don't deny there's climate change but I believe the data is to minuscule a sample of time to draw conclusion.
 
David Dunn said:
scientific evidence can be biased and just like anything else if it biased toward you preconceived persuasion it must be the truth.

I don't deny there's climate change but I believe the data is to minuscule a sample of time to draw conclusion.
Click to expand...

Are you really serious? At least scientists attempt to account for bias. Are conspiracy "theories" bias free?
 
Misfit28 said:
Because they can critically evaluate scientific evidence?

I find it pretty laughable that climate deniers think they are so much more intelligent than highly trained scientists.
Click to expand...

And when I post 50 extremely educated NASA scientists, ALL their names and credentials that want the head of NASA to cut their baloney with extremist man made climate change views......even that doesnt have any effect on you. Why should I invest more time in this? Its a waste of my time.

50 Top Astronauts, Scientists Sign Letter Slamming NASA For Promoting Man-Made Climate Change Dogma

P Gosselin
Invalid Link Removed
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Update: Invalid Link Removed
===============================
Invalid Link Removed

Eventually the sham is going to give, and the latest letter signed by 50 NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience, is a sure sign the gig’s about over.

…..unproven remarks…..not substantiated…..hundreds of well-known climate scientists…..tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief…..science is NOT settled…..unbecoming of NASA’s history…..advocacy of an extreme position…..damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA…..even the reputation of science itself…”

​

Letters to the top don’t get any more blunt than that.

And how many tens of billions have these crackpots at GISS cost the taxpayers?


Here’s the letter:

March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
2. /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
8. /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
10. /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
14. /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
15. /s/ Anita Gale
16. /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
17. /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
18. /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
22. /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
24. /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
25. /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
27. /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
37. /s/ James Pea**** – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
38. /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
43. /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
48. /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
49. /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
 
Cliff note on NASA scientists

" Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
 
Invalid Link Removed

The scientists listed don't have expertise related to climate change.....

The link above looks at their actual expertise. Tobacco companies used the same tactic.
 
Misfit28 said:
Invalid Link Removed

The scientists listed don't have expertise related to climate change.....

The link above looks at their actual expertise. Tobacco companies used the same tactic.
Click to expand...

Neither do you.
 
Misfit28 said:
Invalid Link Removed

The scientists listed don't have expertise related to climate change.....

The link above looks at their actual expertise. Tobacco companies used the same tactic.
Click to expand...

I posted the 50 NASA scientists to support your theory that climate change deniers are all tin foil hat people. I wouldnt be surprised if most of them live in basements under their mother's house investing time into keyboard trolling the internetz spreading these climate change conspiracies and 9/11 conspiracies on science forums while stockpiling storable foods for the upcoming armageddon and social unrest when Hitlery is elected president.
 
ax1 said:
Neither do you.
Click to expand...
Nope, never said I did.

Don't you think people that have actually studied climate would be better able to study it, versus an administrator?

The individuals listed have 0 hours of climate research and 0 peer reviewed publications in climate science.

In science, since you chose to use that as your basis, peer reviewed research in the relevant field is very important.
 
Oh here, here we go I found a selfi of the leading NASA climate change conspirator spreading lies while pocketing hundreds of dollars from big oil to pay for his storable foods.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Misfit28 said:
Lol, so true. I was being sarcastic though ;)

He seems to not be able to figure out his immigration policy lately.
Click to expand...

It's going to bite him in the ass. The trend is for both parties to go way out in one direction and then come back towards the middle as it gets closer to the actual election. However, there are some seriously nutty people that are going to be very upset if he starts backing off on his promises. I'm not saying that all people that plan on voting for Trump are racist gun nuts, but there are a few in that category that may very well do something stupid.
 
Misfit28 said:
Lol, so true. I was being sarcastic though ;)

He seems to not be able to figure out his immigration policy lately.
Click to expand...



I think its going to get worse and he is going to go more and more mainstream establishment. How bad? I dunno but when I saw him pick his VP that was a sign of things to come.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
It's going to bite him in the ass. The trend is for both parties to go way out in one direction and then come back towards the middle as it gets closer to the actual election. However, there are some seriously nutty people that are going to be very upset if he starts backing off on his promises. I'm not saying that all people that plan on voting for Trump are racist gun nuts, but there are a few in that category that may very well do something stupid.
Click to expand...

Like I went nuts after Obama flipped flopped on everything back in 08...just took a few months for me to realize I was played.
 
ax1 said:
I posted the 50 NASA scientists to support your theory that climate change deniers are all tin foil hat people. I wouldnt be surprised if most of them live in basements under their mother's house investing time into keyboard trolling the internetz spreading these climate change conspiracies and 9/11 conspiracies on science forums while stockpiling storable foods for the upcoming armageddon and social unrest when Hitlery is elected president.
Click to expand...

Relevant experience is needed to determine if something is a threat or not. Plus I think you have misconstrued their argument.

These scientists are arguing that climate change is not yet proven - well duh. Science does not attempt to prove something, because it cannot. It is a manner of inquiry and seeks to use data to formulate a stance, however that stance cannot be proven, just asserted through evidence. If the person overwhelming body of data is in favour of a certain position, that is the position you tend to assert.

Remember this: it is often still asserted that far in the diet need to be limited because a huge body of data onced claimed it was an issue. Now we know it isnt but that stabdpoint is still asserted.

they might be asking nasa to hold off on saying not to use such strong language, but their expectations of proof will never happen until it's too late.
 
Jiigzz said:
Relevant experience is needed to determine if something is a threat or not. Plus I think you have misconstrued their argument.

These scientists are arguing that climate change is not yet proven - well duh. Science does not attempt to prove something, because it cannot. It is a manner of inquiry and seeks to use data to formulate a stance, however that stance cannot be proven, just asserted through evidence. If the person overwhelming body of data is in favour of a certain position, that is the position you tend to assert.

Remember this: it is often still asserted that far in the diet need to be limited because a huge body of data onced claimed it was an issue. Now we know it isnt but that stabdpoint is still asserted.

they might be asking nasa to hold off on saying not to use such strong language, but their expectations of proof will never happen until it's too late.
Click to expand...

I more post that because all these polititions such as Obama, mainstream media, and some people on the forum label climate change skeptics as right wing nutter conspiracy tin foil hat people that get all their news from Alex Jones, cling to their guns and religion which is completely not the case.

Anyways, whether its too late or not, its hard t....um never mind, this is getting repetitive, lol

Im all for improving the quality of the environment, reducing pollution and advancing energy but we need to replace leadership...the very top of the "climate change" policy makers running those Copenhagaen conferences pushing for global government and extremist climate views are 100% FRAUDS so we need to get rid of them before its really too late and we have far more problems in our hands than our planet gives us.
 
Jiigzz said:
but their expectations of proof will never happen until it's too late.
Click to expand...

The thing too though I must continue...lol, we heard the same thing with global cooling (pushed by the UN's con man,) we heard the same thing with the Amazon rain forest, we heard the same thing with global warming, and now we are hearing the same thing with climate change. IMO its truly ridiculous and I dont buy it. Predictions and estimates have been way out of line by these people and data has been known to be hidden from the public and most scientists.
 
Jiigzz said:
but their expectations of proof will never happen until it's too late.
Click to expand...

Im sorry, but I have to do this...this is the first thing that comes up to my head when people talk to me like this, ROFL!

Not just you, I fit in too sometimes when I talk about the doing something before the globalist monsters swallowing humanity :)

 
ax1 said:
Im sorry, but I have to do this...this is the first thing that comes up to my head when people talk to me like this, ROFL!

Not just you, I fit in too sometimes :)

Click to expand...

Hahaha good reference lol
 
Anthony Wiener for president! The official mascot of the Clinton Campaign!

Invalid Link Removed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top