So ultimately, your argument is an appeal to authority. If that is an acceptable argument, which it is not, then I will also use the same argument and use the 97% of climate scientists as my appeal to authority. I have 30x the number of scientists that you have, will you accept my appeal to authority?
Will you all freeze to death in the Winter for a Net Zero World?
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
what is wrong with you ?
this has been explained to you multiple times
models that are dead wrong in 2015 do not suddenly become accurate while still spewing the same flawed result
direct some of the billions $ spent on climate alarmist propaganda to john Christy and he can update to 2024
they do not
you just do not understand what you are looking at
john Christy could set you straight
i am not being dishonest
Are you being dishonest frankfooter ?
it is what you do
do you even understand what is being displayed?
Actual Measured and Independently Verified Observations
what part of 4 different balloon datasets verified with 2 satellite data sets confuses you ?
vs
failed model predictions
ands strangely enough the entire climate con is based computer model predictions
Last edited:
the argument is the failed climate models predictions do not match the independently verified real world observations
are you that slow that you can not see this?
since the real world observations are verified by several independent satellite and weather balloon data sets there is no appeal to authority
time to wake up
it is well past the time you admit the climate con has failed
i suggest you seek a different route to back door communism on the world
97% is an absurd claim
Again science determined by comparing actual observations relative to a theoretical predictive value
not by an opinion poll
the observed data does not align with the computer based climate con predictions
Last edited:
I posted Christy's updated chart, with a direct link to UAH's own site and the most recent numbers.
That shows you are being dishonest and using an old chart to misrepresent the real and recent numbers.
Appeal to authority.
If you can't explain it yourself you don't know its true at all.
The recent Christy numbers at UAH show the projected warming is happening.
Yes, you are being dishonest.i am not being dishonest
Are you being dishonest frankfooter ?
it is what you do
do you even understand what is being displayed?
Actual Measured and Independently Verified Observations
what part of 4 different balloon datasets verified with 2 satellite data sets confuses you ?
vs
failed model predictions
View attachment 453749
ands strangely enough the entire climate con is based computer model predictions
You won't use the recent numbers because it disproves your claim.
Instead you just zoom in on sections of an old and debunked chart.
The IPCC projections have been very accurate.
So were Exxon and Shell's numbers.
So is John Christy's recent numbers.
Why are you being so dishonest?
no you did not
wrong again you slithery lying evil excuse for a human being
wrong again
wrong again
have you ever been honest?
even once
you exist to mispresent information to others
you slithery lying evil excuse for a human being
Yes I did post it, right here
Yes, that is a chart that compares surface temperature to the temperature in the troposphere as if they should be changing at the same amount.
Very dishonest. Its a cheap bait and switch technique that you keep defending.
Your personal insults come out every time you are proven wrong.
If you can't defend your claims you go straight to this crap.
If you're going to declare that I'm wrong, NASA is wrong and the IPCC is wrong you need to actually defend your arguments, not just declare you won the debate and every scientist is dishonest.
You claimed that scientists were all biased but ran away from that claim when it was pointed out that Exxon and Shell's scientists came to the same results.
You tried to post a bait and switch chart that compared surface temperature to troposphere temperatures and then instead of defending your argument you starting insulting.
You also once declared something along the lines that if the IPCC, NASA and AAAS are right and you are wrong then the fossil fuel industry was committing one the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed. A sane person would do their due diligence and check their sources. Hell, even the insurance industry understands climate change is real and is changing policies to reflect this reality. But here you are arguing there is no climate change while the global temperature keeps going up every year and there is zero evidence you are right.
that does not show the god awful mess of the climate model predictions
what is wrong with you ?
you blithering idiot
it makes no reference to the surface temperature
are that stupid you do not understand what
means ?
you do not have a god damn clue what you blither about
You claimed that scientists were all biased but ran away from that claim when it was pointed out that Exxon and Shell's scientists came to the same results.
You tried to post a bait and switch chart that compared surface temperature to troposphere temperatures and then instead of defending your argument you starting insulting.
you mis quote me .
stop doing that
and like usual you will say anything with out regard for the truth of the matter
the climate con has failed
time for you to start weaving a different lie to push your world wide communism rule agenda
you are a pathetic excuse for a human being
the climate models are junk based on a failed theory
I didn't say it compared satellite data with projections there, I just said that is where the full data is and its very different from what you claim is UAH charts here.
The charts you posted are clearly bullshit, you won't source them and they don't agree with the numbers posted by UAH.
Here is a chart that includes both UAH and RSS satellite surface temp data with the other major surface temperature data sets.
Yes, you are still trying to claim that the temperature in the lower troposphere is the same as the temperature on the ground.
Followed by attacks calling me the idiot.
Which makes this appear better suited to your own posts.
You are very angry but totally unable to defend your claims.
Is that because you know they are bullshit?
Or is it because you really have no clue about the science?
Its very telling that you keep posting a 9 year old chart that has been repeatedly debunked.
Here's a post from 2016 that covers how Christy fudged the numbers a decade ago when he created them.
RealClimate: Comparing models to the satellite datasets
RealClimate: How should one make graphics that appropriately compare models and observations? There are basically two key points (explored in more depth here) - comparisons should be 'like with like', and different sources of uncertainty should be clear, whether uncertainties are related to...
www.realclimate.org
wrong
look stupid
the greenhouse theory dictates any warming will be observed in the troposphere
and it it just is not happened as described by the models or the alarmist propaganda
wrong
PHYSICS DEMONSTRATES THAT INCREASING GREENHOUSE GASES CANNOT CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING, EXTREME WEATHER OR ANY HARM
More Carbon Dioxide Will Create More Food.
Driving Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Net Zero and Eliminating Fossil Fuels Will Be Disastrous for People Worldwide.
June 7, 2025
Richard Lindzen Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus Massachusetts Institute of Technology William Happer Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS DETERMINED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, VALI DATING THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS WITH OBSERVATIONS, NOT BY GOVERNMENT OPINION, CONSENSUS, 97% OF SCIENTISTS' OPINIONS, PEER REVIEW, MODELS THAT DO NOT WORK, OR CHERRY-PICKED, FABRICATED, FALSIFIED OR OMITTED CONTRADICTORY DATA
Models That Do Not Work Models are a type of theory; they predict physical observations. The scientific method requires models to be tested by observations to see if they work. If a model's prediction disagrees with observations of what it purports to predict, it is wrong and never used as science. The models supporting the climate-crisis narrative simply do not align with observations of the phenomena they are supposedly designed to predict. Instead, they consistently overestimate the warming effect of CO2 emissions, often predicting two or three times more warming than has been observed,
IGNORED SCIENCE #1: CO2, OTHER GHGs AND FOSSIL FUELS WILL NOT CAUSE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING AND MORE EXTREME WEATHER A. Carbon Dioxide Now and At Higher Levels is a Weak Greenhouse Gas, So Reducing It and the Other GHGs to Net Zero Will Have a Negligible Effect On Temperature
600 Million Years of CO2 and Temperature Data Contradict the Theory That High Levels of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming.
The IPCC provided this chart about the Medieval Warm Period (950–1250) and the Little Ice Age (1450–1850). 30 Note the temperature was much higher around 1200 than today.
30 IPCC, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment 203 (1990). We have confirmed this IPPC data from many sources.
Today's 425 ppm CO2 Level Is Very Low, Not Dangerously High, 600 Million Years of Data Show
E. Enormous Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels Contrary to the incessant attack on fossil fuels, affordable, abundant fossil fuels have given ordinary people the sort of freedom, prosperity and health that were reserved for kings in ages past. The following chart of the GDP per person for the last 2,000 years powerfully illustrates what has happened:55
Net Zeroing Fossil Fuels Will Cause Massive Human Starvation by Eliminating
Nitrogen Fertilizer
The Models Predicting Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather Fail the Key Scientific Test: They Do Not Work and Would Never Be Used in Science
Here are the scientific details: CMIP5. John Christy, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, applied the scientific method to CMIP5's 102 predictions of temperatures from 1979 to 2016 by models from 32 institutions. He explained he used "the traditional scientific method in which a claim (hypothesis) is made and is tested against independent information to see if the claim can be sustained," and produced the following chart:69
VI. CONCLUSIONS As career scientists, we have demonstrated that:
1. The common belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change and the EPA Endangerment Finding assertion that "elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated" to endanger the public health and welfare are scientifically false,
2. Reducing CO2 and other GHG emissions to Net Zero by 2050 and eliminating the use of fossil fuels to do so will have a trivial effect on temperature
3. Unscientific evidence is the fundamental basis of all the Net Zero Theory we have seen and the EPA Endangerment Finding
4. Scientific evidence contradicting the Net Zero theory is ignored by all the agency rules, rationale for subsidies and publications we have seen supporting the Net Zero Theory and the EPA Endangerment Finding, as if it does not exist.
5. There is extensive reliable scientific evidence that: a) carbon dioxide, GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather b) there will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, Americans, America, and other countries if CO2, other GHGs and fossil fuels are reduced to Net Zero and will endanger public health and welfare.
6. All the Biden Net Zero Theory rules must be repealed also because they have no public benefits but impose enormous costs on people and in dollars. Therefore, these Supreme Court decisions and the science demonstrated above103 support repealing all the Net Zero Theory rules as soon as possible.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and the latest UAH charts show it is happening in the lesser amounts you would expect in the troposphere as well.
You just won't accept the recent data and will only post 10 year old charts.
Cool, a Happer paper published by the CO2coalition. Double whammy. Yes, I'll also discuss the paper but its also worth noting that the CO2coalition is funded by the Koch brothers and the oil industry. Happer is not a climatologist and was caught in a sting by Greenpeace offering to write a fake paper for free for people he thought were from an OPEC nation.
Greenpeace Sting Exposes Climate-Denying Academics-for-Hire | Common Dreams
Professors from major U.S. institutions agreed to write reports promoting the benefits of CO2—and said they did not need to disclose fossil fuel funding
www.commondreams.org
Your paper is a political piece, not scientific and includes this line:
B. Scientific Knowledge is Not Determined By Unscientific Sources
CO2coalition is an oil funded lobbyist organization, its not a scientific source. Happer argues that it doesn't matter that 97% of scientists think he's wrong because he says he needs experimental evidence. But that was proved years ago and I've repeatedly posted the NASA study that proves that radiative forcing is measurably increasing because of anthropomorphic climate change.
The team found that human activities have caused the radiative forcing on Earth to increase by about 0.5 Watts per square meter from 2003 to 2018. The increase is mostly from greenhouse gases emissions from things like power generation, transport and industrial manufacturing. Reduced reflective aerosols are also contributing to the imbalance.
Direct Observations Confirm That Humans Are Throwing Earth's Energy Budget off Balance – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
A NASA study has confirmed with direct evidence that human activities are changing Earth's energy budget, trapping much more energy from the Sun than is escaping back into space.
That's a statement, much like 'science has declared me smarter than larue'. Lindzen and Happer are favourites of trump the way that RFK jr is trump's medical expert. They are all equal 'experts'.
At least Happer is admitting that 97% of scientists think his ideas are wrong.
The models work. You can keep denying it but the models have been very accurate.
Has Happer or Lindzen ever produced an accurate projection for the climate? They've been at this for decades, surely if you back them they must have made more accurate projections than the IPCC.
Ignored science?
Is this like whining that doctors are ignoring blood letting as treatment?
wrong
From the wiki page on climatology. Temp in blue, CO2 in red. They look very much linked.
There is a wiki page on this argument from science deniers. Its a bullshit argument. the MWP was not global, it was a local event. The 1990 article (of course you stick with 35 year old arguments) was vague but did not say what you claim.
The CO2coalition points to times during thermal maximums and says that CO2 levels were possibly 2,000 ppm as if this means that 450 ppm and only raising the global temp by 4ºC isn't that bad in comparison.
Yes, we know oil$gas is making bank destroying the climate. But now there are cheaper options that don't emit nearly as much CO2, which is why the oil$gas industry constantly attacks the cheaper and cleaner competition.
Different issue, more important is that climate change is causing crop failures already.
Scientists warn climate change could cut crop yields up to a quarter, North America would be hit hardest
Climate change is on track to reduce by 11 percent in 2100 the yields that today provide two-thirds of humanity’s calories from crops, even taking into account adaptation to a warming world, scientists said Wednesday.
www.ctvnews.ca
Climate change cuts global crop yields, even when farmers adapt
That is a dodgy, 10 year old chart that only shows that Christy is not to be trusted.
We went over it before but you can't understand the criticisms.
This is accurate and shows that the IPCC projections have been quite good.
Nope, none of those claims are true.
None.
VI. CONCLUSIONS As career scientists, we have demonstrated that:
1. The common belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change and the EPA Endangerment Finding assertion that "elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated" to endanger the public health and welfare are scientifically false,
2. Reducing CO2 and other GHG emissions to Net Zero by 2050 and eliminating the use of fossil fuels to do so will have a trivial effect on temperature
3. Unscientific evidence is the fundamental basis of all the Net Zero Theory we have seen and the EPA Endangerment Finding
4. Scientific evidence contradicting the Net Zero theory is ignored by all the agency rules, rationale for subsidies and publications we have seen supporting the Net Zero Theory and the EPA Endangerment Finding, as if it does not exist.
5. There is extensive reliable scientific evidence that: a) carbon dioxide, GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather b) there will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, Americans, America, and other countries if CO2, other GHGs and fossil fuels are reduced to Net Zero and will endanger public health and welfare.
6. All the Biden Net Zero Theory rules must be repealed also because they have no public benefits but impose enormous costs on people and in dollars. Therefore, these Supreme Court decisions and the science demonstrated above103 support repealing all the Net Zero Theory rules as soon as possible.[
1. The common belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change and the EPA Endangerment Finding assertion that "elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated" to endanger the public health and welfare are scientifically false,
2. Reducing CO2 and other GHG emissions to Net Zero by 2050 and eliminating the use of fossil fuels to do so will have a trivial effect on temperature
3. Unscientific evidence is the fundamental basis of all the Net Zero Theory we have seen and the EPA Endangerment Finding
4. Scientific evidence contradicting the Net Zero theory is ignored by all the agency rules, rationale for subsidies and publications we have seen supporting the Net Zero Theory and the EPA Endangerment Finding, as if it does not exist.
5. There is extensive reliable scientific evidence that: a) carbon dioxide, GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather b) there will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, Americans, America, and other countries if CO2, other GHGs and fossil fuels are reduced to Net Zero and will endanger public health and welfare.
6. All the Biden Net Zero Theory rules must be repealed also because they have no public benefits but impose enormous costs on people and in dollars. Therefore, these Supreme Court decisions and the science demonstrated above103 support repealing all the Net Zero Theory rules as soon as possible.[
Two scientists who are not climatologists declare that all climatologists are wrong using shoddy work paid for by the oil industry.
As they say:
B. Scientific Knowledge is Not Determined By Unscientific Sources
Net zero will stop increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere which will stop the warming of the global temperature. On our present track we will hit 4ºC and there is a high likelihood that your children and grandchildren will die or have shitty lives as a result, should you have kids.
Restating opinions that all evidence they disagree with is unscientific falls under their point B, posted above.
Restating opinions that all evidence they disagree with is unscientific falls under their point B, posted above.
Restating opinions that all evidence they disagree with is unscientific falls under their point B, posted above.
This just confirms that this paper is political, and not scientific.
Restating opinions that all evidence they disagree with is unscientific falls under their point B, posted above.
larue, everything you have posted has been funded by the oil industry, that same industry whose own scientists found that their products would cause climate change nearly 50 years ago. Once they found this, they buried those reports and spent half a century funding people like Lindzen and Happer so they could keep selling oil, regardless of the results to the planet.
This is Squid Games capitialism.
Exxon knew.
New files shed light on ExxonMobil’s efforts to undermine climate science
Executives privately sought to downplay link between fossil fuels and climate change despite public pronouncements, WSJ reports
www.theguardian.com
If your claims are true you should be able to find independent scientists who came to the same results.
If you can't find any scientists who aren't paid by the oil industry who back this claim you should understand that you've been played.
VI. CONCLUSIONS As career scientists, we have demonstrated that:
1. The common belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change and the EPA Endangerment Finding assertion that "elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated" to endanger the public health and welfare are scientifically false,
2. Reducing CO2 and other GHG emissions to Net Zero by 2050 and eliminating the use of fossil fuels to do so will have a trivial effect on temperature
3. Unscientific evidence is the fundamental basis of all the Net Zero Theory we have seen and the EPA Endangerment Finding
4. Scientific evidence contradicting the Net Zero theory is ignored by all the agency rules, rationale for subsidies and publications we have seen supporting the Net Zero Theory and the EPA Endangerment Finding, as if it does not exist.
5. There is extensive reliable scientific evidence that: a) carbon dioxide, GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather b) there will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, Americans, America, and other countries if CO2, other GHGs and fossil fuels are reduced to Net Zero and will endanger public health and welfare.
6. All the Biden Net Zero Theory rules must be repealed also because they have no public benefits but impose enormous costs on people and in dollars. Therefore, these Supreme Court decisions and the science demonstrated above103 support repealing all the Net Zero Theory rules as soon as possible.[
1. The common belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change and the EPA Endangerment Finding assertion that "elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated" to endanger the public health and welfare are scientifically false,
2. Reducing CO2 and other GHG emissions to Net Zero by 2050 and eliminating the use of fossil fuels to do so will have a trivial effect on temperature
3. Unscientific evidence is the fundamental basis of all the Net Zero Theory we have seen and the EPA Endangerment Finding
4. Scientific evidence contradicting the Net Zero theory is ignored by all the agency rules, rationale for subsidies and publications we have seen supporting the Net Zero Theory and the EPA Endangerment Finding, as if it does not exist.
5. There is extensive reliable scientific evidence that: a) carbon dioxide, GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather b) there will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, Americans, America, and other countries if CO2, other GHGs and fossil fuels are reduced to Net Zero and will endanger public health and welfare.
6. All the Biden Net Zero Theory rules must be repealed also because they have no public benefits but impose enormous costs on people and in dollars. Therefore, these Supreme Court decisions and the science demonstrated above103 support repealing all the Net Zero Theory rules as soon as possible.[
Can you post something that isn't paid for by the oil industry?
Its a bit like posting Netanyahu declaring that Israel is totally innocent of charges of genocide.
Or like Ted Bundy saying he didn't do it.
This means you admit that all your sources are lobbyists or pretend researchers paid for by the oil and gas industry.
You cannot find one who backs them who isn't under their pay.
Total failure, larue.
you are such a fool
Canada Pension Plan Investments drops net-zero target after initially aiming for 2050
the climate con has failed due to reality
You have admitted that what you post is just oil industry misinformation and now you are trying to gloat about said industry stopping action against the shite they are doing to the planet.
Really, larue, why would you gloat about screwing the planet up for your kids, if you had any?
