- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Study: Temp adjustments account for ‘Nearly all of Warming’ In climate data
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:37 am to Iosh
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:37 am to Iosh
quote:
Which dire, doom and gloom predictions are you referring to?
All of them. Surely you've heard them...or most of them? Which ones have you heard of?
*Please don't play dumb..you'll just validate your bias*
1
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:38 am to RobbBobb
Fake Science
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:38 am to Iosh
quote:Ice-free arctic.
Which dire, doom and gloom predictions are you referring to?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:40 am to Dale51
quote:I'm aware of any predictions I'd qualify as "doom and gloom" that were expected to prove out by 2017.
All of them. Surely you've heard them...or most of them? Which ones have you heard of?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:44 am to Iosh
quote:
I'm aware of any predictions I'd qualify as "doom and gloom" that were expected to prove out by 2017.
Wow
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:45 am to Iosh
quote:
I'm aware of any predictions I'd qualify as "doom and gloom" that were expected to prove out by 2017.
You're dodging. I never qualified "by 2017" (that said many were predicted to doom the planet long before 2017).
Using your criteria..whatever that may be..what are some of the dire predictions that were made?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:46 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Maslowski's predictions were not well-regarded among most scientists at the time, as a cursory comparison of his projections vs the IPCC consensus projections shows. Given that this was a case where a scientist's bad prediction was properly rejected by his peers, I'm not sure how it translates to a broader indictment of the AGW hypothesis. The system worked, to the extent we're looking at actual published research and not Al Gore's fat mouth.
Ice-free arctic.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 11:47 am
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:49 am to Dale51
quote:It's implicit in your argument:
You're dodging. I never qualified "by 2017" (that said many were predicted to doom the planet long before 2017).
quote:Asking for predictions that "have come true" means by definition we're looking at predictions of stuff before 2017. Obviously we're not in a position to evaluate the truth or falsity of predictions made for 2050.
So which dire, doom and gloom, predictions that these "scientists" have made in the last half century have come true?
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 11:50 am
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:50 am to tedmarkuson
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:50 am to Iosh
quote:You might want to examine some of those contemporary critiques. They centered much more on timeframe realization of impact when said predictions did not pan out.
Given that this was a case where a scientist's bad prediction was properly rejected by his peers
. . . and so, here we are.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:50 am to RobbBobb
It's 93 in Cenla today, in July. The world is melting a-hole
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:53 am to Iosh
quote:
I'm aware of any predictions I'd qualify as "doom and gloom" that were expected to prove out by 2017.
You try to pass yourself off as qualified to speak on the subject then post this?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:54 am to Iosh
quote:
It's implicit in your argument:
No it isn't.
What does seem to be implicit in your argument is that none were made that claimed negative consequences before 2017. You know that is bullshite.
quote:
Asking for predictions that "have come true" means by definition we're looking at predictions of stuff before 2017. Obviously we're not in a position to evaluate the truth or falsity of predictions made for 2050.
This is another attempt to deflect.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:54 am to Iosh
quote:
Maslowski's predictions were not well-regarded among most scientists at the time, as a cursory comparison of his projections vs the IPCC consensus projections shows. Given that this was a case where a scientist's bad prediction was properly rejected by his peers, I'm not sure how it translates to a broader indictment of the AGW hypothesis. The system worked, to the extent we're looking at actual published research and not Al Gore's fat mouth
You're actually going to just sit there and pretend that even NASA didn't put out the Ice Free Arctic meme?
Yeah.
I mean, it's not like you can find HUNDREDS of stories from every single one of the Global Warming usual suspects out there.
Nah. Can't do that. We'll just pretend some random guy was wrong.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:56 am to ShortyRob
And I suppose we're just going to pretend that they haven't REPEATEDLY had to change their models in reaction to actual data that didn't conform to prior model predictions.
Yeah. We'll just pretend that too.
Yeah. We'll just pretend that too.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:00 pm to ShortyRob
quote:I don't think NASA put out anything about an ice free arctic by Maslowski's date, no. I'm sure there's at least some stuff reflecting the mid-century consensus, but that's too early to evaluate.
You're actually going to just sit there and pretend that even NASA didn't put out the Ice Free Arctic meme?
It is not escaping my notice that these "you can't REALLY be saying that" posts are heavy on emoji and bereft of links.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:01 pm to Dale51
quote:"Negative consequences" is a substantial goalpost move from "doom and gloom."
What does seem to be implicit in your argument is that none were made that claimed negative consequences before 2017. You know that is bullshite.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:02 pm to RobbBobb
College Station summer so far 2 degrees cooler compared to 2016
#warmingtrend
#warmingtrend
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:03 pm to Iosh
I rarely follow this climate debate, so I don't have much to add. I am, however, curious as to why the chart you posted stopped in 2010. It seems that each line got to 2005, then began to trend downward over the next five years.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:07 pm to Iosh
Man, you're going to stand on the warming hoax for good.
Page 2 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News