Bill Nye the Pyschoanalyst

Koch Derangement Syndrome ^^ To raise the price of fossil fuel energy by gov imposed policies is immoral.

 

Or which part of the hockey stick remains visible.

 

Thanks for proving my point. You really have no idea what is going on in the actual science but only know the activist propaganda.

 

If you feel that proves your point, that is part of the problem.
Science is not activist propaganda.

 

Which are rejected by the same people who espouse them when it comes to immigration as if we have endless resources, but that is a different issue entirely I suppose.

 

Yet that is what you keep repeating.

 

Koch and fossil fuels fund Universities ...but you knew that.



.

 

Bill Nye, the idiot guy. Nothing like a mechanical engineer as a talking head for the alarmist activists.

 

It's simply selective "moral" outrage with no understanding of the immorality of gov policies which increase the price of fossil fuels. In Germany these days electricity is a luxury item.

 

It's actually surprising that a "science guy" with an engineering degree is so clueless about global warming. I have an MS in Mech Eng - Thermal Systems. Nye would be completely obliterated in a technology review situation. His arguments cannot be supported.

 

As I have commented at this site many times, it is amazing how expensive all this free energy has become in places such as Germany, and how this allegedly clean energy has a massive upfront environmental cost that is exported overseas to places like China where people are so desperate for a better life, they will rape the environment to process the rare earth minerals, leaving massive amounts of toxicity in its wake

 

You are confusing the difference between NULL warming and AGW based warming modeling.

Yes most skeptics have for a long time accepted that it has been warming trend, but correctly point out that it is not unusual and similar to past warming trends to the mid 1800's.

The AGW based warming modeling, promotes a much bigger warming trend than observed and made specific short term prediction/projections that have utterly failed.

The headline you barely noticed, reads:

"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"

It never said "no warming" anywhere in the link and in the published papers. It makes clear they think AGW alarmism is overblown.

The very first paper listed in the link:

"Abstract
For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of."

Snicker................

 

Totally wrong. An actual skeptic would have know that.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

Yeah, Poptechs's old fraud. A non-scientific, cherry-picked list of denier-friendly studies that still mostly don't say what he claims. Fools the denier pseudo-skeptics, of course, because that crowd instantly believes anything that confirms their biases.

 

That’s hilarious.

 

Here is what the IPPC stated in 1990:

"Based on current model results, we predict:

• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century."

On average a .30C per decade warming rate. Realclimate doesn't mention all this at all in their misleading/deceptive crap.

Satellite data from 1990 show about HALF the warming rate:



realclimate uses the worst data set (PISS) to make their lies with. The current warming rate is about .16C similar to the other warming trends back to 1860, when using HadleyCrut as stated by DR. Jones in his BBC interview.

 

"Yeah, Poptechs's old fraud. A non-scientific, cherry-picked list of denier-friendly studies that still mostly don't say what he claims. Fools the denier pseudo-skeptics, of course, because that crowd instantly believes anything that confirms their biases."

Here you scream with dribble coming out of your mouth with no substance at all, which is exposes YOU as being ignorant as to what they really are.

 

Let the spittle fly! Belief is a funny thing. Apparently those that believe actively dismiss any and all inconvenient science that counters their dogma. You have picked a side but science is on the back burner for the true believers.

 

Bzzzzt. Scam on your part. You're busted.

Were emissions close to scenario A?

No?

Then why did you quote predictions for scenario A, instead of for scenario B, which was much closer to actual emissions?

Yes, I understand that your cult didn't tell you there were multiple scenarios, and that if your cult doesn't spoon feed it to you, you have no hope of knowing it. However, you know it now. You know your cult deliberately misled you. Are you going to grow a spine and take them to task for lying to you, or are you going to drop to your knees, lick their boots, and beg for more lies?

Experience indicates you'll do the latter. I've never encountered a denier cultist who had any objections to their masters lying to them. Quite the contrary. Deniers get enraged at anyone who won't lie to them.

 

Notice how mamooth said almost nothing here?

I was the one who posted the LINK to the IPPC report and made a true quote from it. I have known it since 1995 when I gained access to the reports.

You need to tone down your potty mouth here.

Here is what the other scenarios look like, that you failed to quote:

"under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0 1 °C per decade (Scenario D)"

bolding mine

Scenario A is the BUSINESS AS USUAL scenario, that was at the time based on the existing CO2 emission rate, which went UP since that report, thus Scenario A is the closest to what happened. The other scenarios had NO progressive control over increasing rates. They quickly fell off the radar in relevance.

Do I have to continue here to point out the obvious?

 

Good, good, let the hate flow through you.

Scenario B is closest to real world emissions. Scenario B predicted 0.2C/decade. From 1990-2017, observations measured about 0.2C/decade. So, the lesson is that even the old 1990 IPCC predictions were quite good.

Scenario A predicted 3.5 W/m^2 of greenhouse gas forcing at 2010.

Scenario B predicted 3.0.

The actual number was 2.8.

Scenario B was closest.

I thank you for the opportunity to show how good the IPCC predictions have been.