The real climate declaration

[Salvador]

No, some models over estimated warming. Some models underestimated warming. For the most part they have been rather accurate:

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? | Carbon Brief

That's not the information I've read.

"Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be “totally wrong” … temperatures aren’t rising as predicted … hoax unraveling"

Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be "totally wrong" ... temperatures aren't rising as predicted ... hoax unraveling

If climate change models have been either overestimating or underestimating global warming, then either way, most of them have not been precisely accurate.

Your own reference source about climate model projections does admit in its conclusion that the ...."Models are far from perfect"...

 

[Salvador]

Yes, you know more than the scientific community.

I'm not claiming to know more than the scientific community in regards to some particular subjects. However, I as well as many of my right-wing ideologists just happen to be closer to the truth about climate change than has been the accuracy of the IPCC climate model predictions that so many scientists foolishly endorsed. ....

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not the information I've read.

"Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be “totally wrong” … temperatures aren’t rising as predicted … hoax unraveling"

Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be "totally wrong" ... temperatures aren't rising as predicted ... hoax unraveling

If climate change models have been either overestimating or underestimating global warming, then either way, most of them have not been precisely accurate.

LOL, find a valid source. You might as well have linked this article:

GLOBAL COOLING THREATENS EARTH! - Weekly World News

Or this one:

Study Finds Rising Sea Levels Result Of Expansive Colonization Effort By Dolphins

 

[ChristineM]

That's not the information I've read.

"Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be “totally wrong” … temperatures aren’t rising as predicted … hoax unraveling"

Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be "totally wrong" ... temperatures aren't rising as predicted ... hoax unraveling

If climate change models have been either overestimating or underestimating global warming, then either way, most of them have not been precisely accurate.

Your own reference source about climate model projections does admit in its conclusion that the ...."Models are far from perfect"...

Natural News (formerly NewsTarget, which is now a separate sister site) is a conspiracy theory and fake news website.[2] The website sells various dietary supplements, promotes alternative medicine, tendentious nutrition and health claims,[3] fake news,[4][5][6] and espouses various conspiracy theories.[7] These conspiracy theories include chemophobic claims about the purported dangers of "chemtrails",[2] fluoridated drinking water,[8] anti-perspirants, laundry detergent, monosodium glutamate, aspartame), and alleged health problems caused by allegedly "toxic" ingredients in vaccines,[2][3] including the now-discredited link to autism.[9] It has also spread conspiracy theories about the Zika virus allegedly being spread by genetically modified mosquitoes[10] and purported adverse effects of genetically modified crops, as well as the farming practices associated with and foods derived from them.[11]
Natural News - Wikipedia


Right i believe, i believe

 

[Yerda]

I'm not claiming to know more than the scientific community in regards to some particular subjects. However, I as well as many of my right-wing ideologists just happen to be closer to the truth about climate change than has been the accuracy of the IPCC climate model predictions that so many scientists foolishly endorsed. ....

The climate models are great. Sometimes they overshoot, sometimes they undershoot but it's a statistical game.

 

[ChristineM]

LOL, find a valid source. You might as well have linked this article:

GLOBAL COOLING THREATENS EARTH! - Weekly World News

Or this one:

Study Finds Rising Sea Levels Result Of Expansive Colonization Effort By Dolphins

I find it surprising that otherwise "genuine and honest" people can provide such garbage as a source. Must be a confirmation bias thing

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not claiming to know more than the scientific community in regards to some particular subjects. However, I as well as many of my right-wing ideologists just happen to be closer to the truth about climate change than has been the accuracy of the IPCC climate model predictions that so many scientists foolishly endorsed. ....

Not if you used natural news as you mode of education

 

[Valjean]

I hope you're right that she's irrelevant, we agree then that she and anybody who agrees with her Green New Deal should be voted out of Congress next year. The scientific consensus is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen about 0.4 °C over the past 100 years. This is far less than experts predicted.

This is less than NASA's estimate, and most of the increase has been in the past few decades, with the rate of increase steadily increasing. Moreover, most of the heat has been absorbed by the oceans, masking much of the warming, but still causing weather and ecological problems.
Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
35 Surprising Facts About Global Warming You Need to Know

Past global warming models have way overestimated increases in global temperatures, so right-wing ideologists like me have been closer to the truth about climate change than the accuracy of predictions made on the basis of most global warming models.

Why do I see revisions of predicted effects trending upward as new data comes in -- practically weekly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it surprising that otherwise "genuine and honest" people can provide such garbage as a source. Must be a confirmation bias thing

When one is desperate one takes whatever is available. At least I used to find scientists that were at least partially tied to the field when I had my doubts. It was the use of this sort of soruce by others that made me rethink my postion. That and the realization that my sources tended to use temperatures that had to be failry local rather than global. I doubt if could find anything that I used to use. Finally it was the distortions of Lord Monckton that finally convinced me that I had been wrong. If the truth is on one's side then why the need to debate dishonestly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do I see revisions of predicted effects trending upward as new data comes in -- practically weekly?

Deep state conspiracy?

 

[Salvador]

Natural News (formerly NewsTarget, which is now a separate sister site) is a conspiracy theory and fake news website.[2] The website sells various dietary supplements, promotes alternative medicine, tendentious nutrition and health claims,[3] fake news,[4][5][6] and espouses various conspiracy theories.[7] These conspiracy theories include chemophobic claims about the purported dangers of "chemtrails",[2] fluoridated drinking water,[8] anti-perspirants, laundry detergent, monosodium glutamate, aspartame), and alleged health problems caused by allegedly "toxic" ingredients in vaccines,[2][3] including the now-discredited link to autism.[9] It has also spread conspiracy theories about the Zika virus allegedly being spread by genetically modified mosquitoes[10] and purported adverse effects of genetically modified crops, as well as the farming practices associated with and foods derived from them.[11]
Natural News - Wikipedia

Right i believe, i believe

Regardless of Natural News unfounded conspiracy theories, IPCC climate change models have indeed overestimated global temperature increases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regardless of Natural News unfounded conspiracy theories, IPCC climate change models have indeed overestimated global temperature increases.

Some have overestimated some have underestimated, on average they are correct.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's not the information I've read.

"Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be “totally wrong” … temperatures aren’t rising as predicted … hoax unraveling"

Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be "totally wrong" ... temperatures aren't rising as predicted ... hoax unraveling

If climate change models have been either overestimating or underestimating global warming, then either way, most of them have not been precisely accurate.

Your own reference source about climate model projections does admit in its conclusion that the ...."Models are far from perfect"...

That's the reason why I'm against theoretical modeling and predictions.

That's another reason why I state that I'm waiting for those islands to sink still .

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's the reason why I'm against theoretical modeling and predictions.

That's another reason why I state that I'm waiting for those islands to sink still .

I am sorry,but that makes no sense at all. Many aspects of your life depend upon modeling. Why oppose such a powerful and useful tool?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am sorry,but that makes no sense at all. Many aspects of your life depend upon modeling. Why oppose such a powerful and useful tool?

Because it doesn't do people much good when the real world results continually render the modeling worthless and not worth considering in the future.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it doesn't do people much good when the real world results continually render the modeling worthless and not worth considering in the future.

When has that happened? It has not happeded with AGW.

 

[Twilight Hue]

When has that happened? It has not happeded with AGW.

Only if they first went through the process of Hindcasting.

Like a lot of things today, I think a lot of information is just put out there for the sake of agenda and whatnot.

Just because a scientist says or claims something shouldn't be taken immediately as gospel, so it's interesting to see if modeling holds up to the test of peer review and consistent accuracy.

Lots of pretty graphics, lines, and bars out there. A few only make the cut and that list is pretty vague at best these days.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if they first went through the process of Hindcasting.

Like a lot of things today, I think a lot of information is just put out there for the sake of agenda and whatnot.

Just because a scientist says or claims something shouldn't be taken immediately as gospel, so it's interesting to see if modeling holds up to the test of peer review and consistent accuracy.

Lots of pretty graphics, lines, and bars out there. A few only make the cut and that list is pretty vague at best these days.

That really makes no sense. You just admitted that AGW models are legitimate since they do hindcasting quite often.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That really makes no sense. You just admitted that AGW models are legitimate since they do hindcasting quite often.

Think Wally Broecker. From 1975 to the 2000 he was fairly accurate, but then went notably off the mark after the 2000s with the forecasting and predictions.

 

[ChristineM]

Regardless of Natural News unfounded conspiracy theories, IPCC climate change models have indeed overestimated global temperature increases.

And? The NIPPC is wrong too, they are both usung estimates and projections.

The fact remains climate change is occurring, the consensus is that humans are the major cause and it is literally killing people.

If you are happy with your emissions killing people that's up to your own conscience.

And of course your source is proven to be a fake news site. Why do you need to use fake news sites?