Alps ski season......done. Maybe forever.

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
21,768
1,988
113
South coast OR
Where’s your proof that they didn’t take that into consideration?
Where's your proof that they did?

Here's a report that was done back in 2005 (also referencing another separate independent report in 2007) on the subject, that shows a lot of contamination in their "historical" data.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGR07-background.pdf

"Contamination of surface climate data is a potentially serious problem for the IPCC. Conclusions about the amount of global warming, and the role of greenhouse gases, are based on the assumption that the adjustment models work perfectly and there is no artificial warm bias in the climate records. Scientists who attribute warming to greenhouse gases argue that their climate models cannot reproduce the surface trends from natural variability alone. If they can’t attribute it to natural variability, they attribute it to greenhouse gases, since (they assume) all other human influences have been removed from the data by the adjustment models. If that has not happened, however, they cannot claim to be able to identify the role of greenhouse gases. Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated."

This is just a slice of the unaccountable processes used in determining some of their claims.
 
Last edited:

manbearpig

Duke status
May 11, 2009
29,938
10,393
113
in the bathroom
If there’s anything scientists in this field isn’t is thorough.

this is one of the most studied subjects and to think there’s no accountability within the field is laughable.

you throw out a lot of very obvious assumptions without ever backing them. If you stayed away from those assumptions you’d actually have some valid rebuttals.

and like I said earlier, no one has claimed that every single prediction is or will be true. That goes against the definition of the term.
 

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
21,768
1,988
113
South coast OR
If there’s anything scientists in this field isn’t is thorough.

this is one of the most studied subjects and to think there’s no accountability within the field is laughable.

you throw out a lot of very obvious assumptions without ever backing them. If you stayed away from those assumptions you’d actually have some valid rebuttals.

and like I said earlier, no one has claimed that every single prediction is or will be true. That goes against the definition of the term.
 

Duffy LaCoronilla

Duke status
Apr 27, 2016
39,082
28,589
113
Smog was REALLY, REALLY bad back then. Places like LA were hideous, and seeing the local mountains was a rarity in summer, even if you were in the valleys right next to them. Coughing from smog was not uncommon on the still aired bad days, when it even got out to the beaches on those real bad days.

Today, even the worst days in LA are like Big Sky Montana clear days in comparison to the 60's/70's.
You‘re welcome.
 

Clayster

Miki Dora status
Oct 26, 2005
5,676
1,280
113
18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

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

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Ha ha ha.

But THIS time they are really, really right.
 
  • Love
Reactions: casa_mugrienta

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
68,557
23,249
113
62
Vagina Point
From a neuro-biological perspective, it's better to mistake a stick for a snake than a snake for a stick if you want to survive in a hostile environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afoaf

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
21,768
1,988
113
South coast OR
It's the same old same old. I post factual data from actual public sources like NOAA and others, yet they just put it on the ignore and deny it was even there.

I'm not discounting ALL aspects of the AGW claims, it's the unproven and hyped outcomes of near future catastrophe that I have HUGE problems seeing in any the claims and predictions of doom. Especially if we don't pay governments more $$$ to "fix it".

USA and much of west Euro are already reducing CO2 and toxic pollution, and have been for 20-30 years now.

All the while, China, India and the emerging 3rd world are doubling and tripling CO2 and toxics without ANY incentives to reduce. And with BILLIONS more people adding to it with new prosperity once only dreamed of. They claim they will reduce with handshakes at Paris and such, but it's still yet to be seen what-so-ever. And they will continue to emit CO2 in greater mega-tonnage every year for the next 20 years, easily.

If it's such the "existential threat" to all mankind globally, shouldn't the UN be sanctioning these countries into giving up their plans for 1000+ NEW coal fired power plants the next 10-20 years in Africa, SE Asia and other countries THEY want to develop for new cheaper labor? China and India are getting more expensive and bottom lines need to be met. Let alone their own countries of China, India and emerging 3rd nations?

Where is the mass public pressure for these countries to drastically reduce their planned growth in coal and other toxic waste output? It's not like CO2 is a local only generated problem and stays in a countries borders. Its "damage" is global and "supposedly" affects climate worldwide, in both hemispheres, right? "Per capita" is just a smokescreen to allow emerging countries to catch up, while we struggle to reduce and allow these emerging countries to take all manufacturing in the process. Out of sight, out of mind is the eco-warrior mantra.

Enviro-socialism is alive and well.
 

manbearpig

Duke status
May 11, 2009
29,938
10,393
113
in the bathroom
Like I said before, you make some interesting points but you also unfortunately cloud those points with your own dishonesty and molding of the opposition as you see fit.
 

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
21,768
1,988
113
South coast OR
Like I said before, you make some interesting points but you also unfortunately cloud those points with your own dishonesty and molding of the opposition as you see fit.
I have some opinions based on past actions by those making claims of dire consequences we were to see by now.

Is that wrong, and should be ignored? Better luck on the next 10 year claim?

I post actual NOAA data that disproves their claims and they are discounted as "lies".
 

manbearpig

Duke status
May 11, 2009
29,938
10,393
113
in the bathroom
Do you mean a few incorrect predictions falsify the entire notion?

No it doesn't.

There is also plenty of data that is to the contrary of what you claim (all of which has been posted here numerous times), so does that make you the liar now?

I have the pleasure of working directly with a laboratory and team of scientists that are the top of their field; a private lab that works at an international level. A big portion of what I deal with day in and day out is AGW related, and I have them to confirm that. These people aren't the agenda driven ghouls you make them out to be.
 

ElOgro

Duke status
Dec 3, 2010
32,120
12,104
113
Do you mean a few incorrect predictions falsify the entire notion?

No it doesn't.

There is also plenty of data that is to the contrary of what you claim (all of which has been posted here numerous times), so does that make you the liar now?

I have the pleasure of working directly with a laboratory and team of scientists that are the top of their field; a private lab that works at an international level. A big portion of what I deal with day in and day out is AGW related, and I have them to confirm that. These people aren't the agenda driven ghouls you make them out to be.
Where do you find the time?