Failed climate predictions from false prophets

[truthpls]

Your link to the very organization you touted as representing the scientific community shows less than four-tenths of one percent of them disagree with position statement they posted:
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades. Its manifestation includes the warming of the atmosphere and oceans, intensification of the heaviest precipitation over continental areas, increasing upper-ocean acidity, increasing frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes, reductions in Northern Hemisphere snow and ice, and rising global sea level. The latitudinal and seasonal observations of the surface warming and the observed warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere are consistent with theoretical expectations from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The increase in global average surface temperature over the past half-century cannot be fully explained by natural climate variability, e.g., responses to Earth’s orbital changes over thousands of years, or natural climate forcing such as from solar or volcanic variability."

You seem to be making my points for me. Or are you now telling me you no longer want to use them as representative of scientist opinion?

The quote you cite seems to say gasses contribute to it. The link I gave said that in the US, the majority do not support man made causes. Connect the dots. The point you missed or avoided was that there is distention in the ranks. Different claims and opinions from science. A house divided

He took a look at factors that would increase atmospheric warming. Only one of them seemed to fit the existing data.

Seemed. Seemed to him...etc. To others it seems another way.

So he predicted what the future would be, using only carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.

Since that gas was rising, it was bound to be right if a warming trend happened. Just as if some claimed gases were to blame for cooling and a cooling weather trend happened, they would claim bragging rights.

The organization you touted has 13,000 members in the U.S. Only 50 of them dissented from the conclusion of that organization, supporting anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of warming.

Yet the link said otherwise. Guess we better check the links as well as the prophesies here!
Either you or the link is wrong.

Also in 2021, a team led by Mark Lynas had found 80,000 climate-related studies

You seem to be seeking a popularity argument. As if the most votes win. Sorry, the point is dissension and that many were wrong. That is all that matters in a false prophesy thread! You cannot deny there was differences in prophesies or opinions. So just pick who you choose to believe! Who you pick merely tells us your beliefs!

Your prophets just had it wrong. And by this century, there was no longer any debate. The vast majority of climatologists knew that warming is primarily the function of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

All sorts of prophets had it wrong and all used science in their arguments. Best to believe God and toss out all the opinions of men, who lie for profit, and are easily influenced by Satan and his vile little anti human agenda. Good thing God already told us the future and overrules them all.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

The tornados are doing quite well...
"the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet." (Nahum 1:3)

 

[The Barbarian]

The quote you cite seems to say gasses contribute to it. The link I gave said that in the US, the majority do not support man made causes.

But you were touting that group as authoritative, and less than four-tenths of one percent of them agree with you. You cans see what the majority says:
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades. Its manifestation includes the warming of the atmosphere and oceans, intensification of the heaviest precipitation over continental areas, increasing upper-ocean acidity, increasing frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes, reductions in Northern Hemisphere snow and ice, and rising global sea level. The latitudinal and seasonal observations of the surface warming and the observed warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere are consistent with theoretical expectations from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The increase in global average surface temperature over the past half-century cannot be fully explained by natural climate variability, e.g., responses to Earth’s orbital changes over thousands of years, or natural climate forcing such as from solar or volcanic variability."

Your prophets just had it wrong. And by this century, there was no longer any debate. The vast majority of climatologists knew that warming is primarily the function of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Best to believe God and toss out all the opinions of men, who lie for profit

Like your prophets with a payroll agenda?

A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.

C'mon. Do you think we didn't notice?

Best to believe God and toss out all the opinions of men, who lie for profit

Like your profitable prophet Willie?

 

[truthpls]

But you were touting that group as authoritative, and less than four-tenths of one percent of them agree with you. You cans see what the majority says:

No, I was posting a link that claimed the majority of such scientists in the US disagreed man was the main cause. Not whether the international group thinks man contributed in some way. I think man probably makes a contribution. Nothing that we should worry about though.

The increase in global average surface temperature over the past half-century cannot be fully explained by natural climate variability, e.g., responses to Earth’s orbital changes over thousands of years, or natural climate forcing such as from solar or volcanic variability."

So their ability to know what the problem is has limits. Within those limits, the group (presumably outside the US, since the link I posted says the majority there disagree) they are unable to explain the trend using volcanoes and such.

The vast majority of climatologists knew that warming is primarily the function of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

The smart ones disagree. Plenty of those around as you have learned. Since there is widespread disagreement, then, will you admit that the sum package of opinions and prophesies are fairly worthless (as well as proven wrong in many cases)?

C'mon. Do you think we didn't notice?

"It is a good time to be in the decarbonization business in the United States. The Inflation Reduction Act—with its $374 billion cornucopia of green incentives, subsidies, and grants—was designed to entice private companies to invest in the transition away from fossil fuels. Initial reports already suggest that the IRA may be working. An analysis by American Clean Power, a lobbying group of renewable-energy companies, indicates that even just the anticipation of its bounty catalyzed $40 billion in investments"

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/02/inflation-reduction-act-eu-green-deal-industrial-plan/672985/

Lots of people are on the payroll of the climate agenda. No doubt some businesses being threatened would also hire some scientists to say what they want! After all, it isn't about science, it is about an appearance of science being on your side. If it were about science obviously we would not have the plethora of false prophets exposed, and the unending din and whine of dissent and difference of opinion from science

Pretending that the only ones making money are the ones questioning the blind rush to embrace and worship climate change is less than ridiculous. Your false prophets are making the big money.

 

[eclipsenow]

"April 1970, Erlich in Mademoiselle: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

Ehrlich was not a climatologist - and was not talking about global warming. Instead he came up with the illustration of I=PAT to show the importance of human Population's impact on the biosphere, which of course is self evidence. Impact = Population * Affluence (consumption of resources) * Technology.

But he got a bit carried away with his illustration - and thought it was a determinative algorithm for predicting the future. It's not. It is an illustration only. Each individual nation needs analysis. Claims about environmental impact are a huge subject, and involve so many assumptions about resources and technologies it is hard to map this stuff out, even for some of the experts.

Harvard biologist and Nobel Prize winner George Wald, speaking at the University of Rhode Island in November 1970: “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

I had a brief look at George Wald - and he appears to be from a medical background and seemed to have been talking about the dangerous of both environmental pressure and societal tension leading to nuclear war.

The fact that a full scale nuclear war would be TEOTWAWKI is self evident.

-- in July 2009, then-Prince Charles chimed in, asserting the planet had 96 months to avoid decimation: “…irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it."

Doomsday Addiction: Celebrating 50 years of Failed Climate Predictions

Politicians, scientists, and celebs assure us the apocalypse is tomorrow, and if not, the day after will do. Buckle up for a look at 50 years of cataclysmic predictions.

www.agweb.com

KING CHARLES AN ODD DUCK - BUT HAS A HANDLE ON SOME THINGS
Hmm, now this one is interesting. Charles raises some questions us Christians especially should really think about! I think we could learn a lot from this speech if we slowed down and shook some alt-right MAGA politics out of our brains to THINK BIBLICALLY for a moment about it all.

Note that Charles DID NOT say the world would end in 8 years! He was saying we had 8 years to get things in play to avoid “…irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse" - but he did not say when that would begin. Some of these things are less like that project due at work, and more like that tapping noise in the engine that really should get serviced "soonish" - because you're not quite sure when it's going to wear out the other moving parts in the engine - and when they're going to blow.

FUDGING or STATISTICAL PROBABILITY?
I am not fudging this. This is sort of how enormous climate-scaled systems work. See - as the old analogy goes - climate is a bit like personality. You can be calm and zen and generally trustworthy to act appropriately on a given day. Sure - you might be angry if some kid bullies your kid mercilessly at school. But it's not psychotic rage - and generally does not involve taking an automatic weapon to the school to wipe out everyone involved!

Climate change is when people start to say "Are you OK? That was a bit over the top. Also - you're not as happy as you used to be." That's when things are just starting to go wrong. You're not acting out ALL the time - constantly Hulk raging - but something's wrong. And if your underlying problem is ignored - you could get more and more depressed, and have worse and worse outbursts.

Climate change disasters are not a button that switches between ON or OFF. They're a sliding scale. Or another metaphor: weather like a toddler in the bathtub, making waves in the water. That variability in the water is the weather. Climate change is the fact that someone left the tap on, and those waves - those patterns in the weather - sure are starting to get worse and more serious!

The coral reefs around the world are bleaching, the glaciers are retreating, and even the seasons are arriving too early for some basic food web patterns to work. Grubs hatch before the baby birds, so that the parent birds have less to feed them by the time the chicks hatch. Human impacts from heatwaves, bushfires, and the atmosphere being wetter - the impacts are already starting!

But we are not even near the tipping points yet.

DELAYING DOOMSDAY?
Sure - if you listen to Paul Ehrlich and George Wald above as "greenie doomsdays that got delayed." But that in itself is a form of intellectual dishonesty - of fudging. Because what we are talking about here is not generic greenie pessimism.

It's very specific. It's about increasing costs of out-of-the-norm weather. Until say the last few years, climatologists were reluctant to put a percentage of climate influence on any one event. Now they can! The statistical modelling has got to the point where they can sort of pull the climate fingerprint out of the statistical noise of weather. Look out for those reports! It's already started! King Charles may not have been that far off!

The overall picture from climate science has got a LOT worse rather than better. In another thread a denier accused the climate scientists of always delaying doomsday - setting the deadline back. Nothing could be further from the truth! In the following graph (from the TED Talk by Johan Rockström) you can see that red is the danger zone when naturally stored carbon starts burping into the atmosphere and nature takes over and starts warming itself! As you can see - the more paleoclimate data has come in from the deep past - the more urgent the situation becomes! We're starting to see various things happening now!

RED = scientific understanding of that IPCC report as to when tipping points might start (that have the potential to accelerate all the bad things to TEOTWAWKI).

Please note it even crept forward from 2018 to 2022's report.

the actual future prophesied in the bible.

I'm Amil. Revelation is a symbolic sermon on suffering to Roman Christians - with our gospel hope of the return of the Lord to fix all evils wound through the book in a non-Chronological order. So we see the Lord returning at the end of Chapter 6, and at multiple other points. It simply doesn't work as an end-times-table of the end of the world - and if it WAS some kind of future timetable - what GOOD has it been for the church for 2000 years? This futurist way of reading Revelation is a relatively recent American invention in church history.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ehrlich was not a climatologist - and was not talking about global warming. Instead he came up with the illustration of I=PAT to show the importance of human Population's impact on the biosphere, which of course is self evidence. Impact = Population * Affluence (consumption of resources) * Technology.

If the human population impacts the climate, and the climate impacts the human population, are you suggesting a Malthusian check is on the horizon?

 

[Ellesmere]

"the false prophets of climate change claim science for their false prophesies ....."

"April 1970, Erlich in Mademoiselle: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

Erlich was not alone. In the early 1970s, a host of voices supported his beliefs.

Harvard biologist and Nobel Prize winner George Wald, speaking at the University of Rhode Island in November 1970: “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

-- in July 2009, then-Prince Charles chimed in, asserting the planet had 96 months to avoid decimation: “…irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it."

Doomsday Addiction: Celebrating 50 years of Failed Climate Predictions

Politicians, scientists, and celebs assure us the apocalypse is tomorrow, and if not, the day after will do. Buckle up for a look at 50 years of cataclysmic predictions.

www.agweb.com

Knowing the religion of climate change is full of fals e prophetshelps us to remember the actual future prophesied in the bible. Since the false prophets of climate change claim science for their false prophesies, that tells us something important as well.
Yes climate will be affected by the nuclear bombs and other machinations of wicked men and most of the population will die because of this same wickedness as well as the judgments of God. Meanwhile when they steal our jobs and wealth in the name of the climate we can know that it is a deception.

 

[eclipsenow]

View attachment 372011

"the false prophets of climate change claim science for their false prophesies ....."

It's quite spectacular what 3 little Christmas bulbs per square meter of the earth's surface can do.

As ScienceAlert says: In the mid-2000s, the energy imbalance was about 0.6 watts per square metre (W/m2) on average. In recent years, the average was about 1.3 W/m2. This means the rate at which energy is accumulating near the planet's surface has doubled.​

Or - if we were to concentrate that extra energy into one place?

It would be 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!

Of every minute,
of every hour,
of every day,
of every week,
of every month,
of every year,
of every decade!

​

But who cares about melting glaciers, right?​

UN experts might have something to say about that.​

Regardless of where we live, we all depend in some way on mountains and glaciers. But these essential natural water towers are facing imminent peril. This report demonstrates the urgent need for action and that the most effective solutions require a multilateral approach.​

​

Water flows downhill, but food insecurity rises uphill. The earth’s mountains provide 60% of our freshwater, but the communities that safeguard these vital resources are among the most food insecure. We must invest in their resilience to protect glaciers, rivers - and a shared future for all of us.​

​

Two billion people depend on mountain waters
- UNESCO​

​