Past Climate Predictions Get a Web Sight

[rushmc 23]

Some of the pages
Classics
http://climatechangepredictions.org/classics
having it both ways
http://climatechangepredictions.org/category/having_it_both_ways

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

SITE.

S-I-T-E

You get it wrong every single time.

Jeez!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Stumpy 284]

Demonstrates an inability to learn - and you are surprised?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rushmc 23]

Stumpy

Demonstrates an inability to learn - and you are surprised?

Does it bug kallend?

Inability to learn?

Ok

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

kallend

SITE.

S-I-T-E

You get it wrong every single time.

Jeez!

Btw
did you enjoy all the failed predictions spelled out on the




sight?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And actually
I do get that spelling wrong all to often

Habit I guess

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

You must be so excited to have found a new denier website. Congrats.

- Dan G

[jclalor 12]

rushmc

And actually
I do get that spelling wrong all to often

Habit I guess

Yes you do, all too often.

( I know my own spelling sucks, I just love jumping on the bandwagon)

[rushmc 23]

DanG

You must be so excited to have found a new denier website. Congrats.

A no content post
again
Congrats

It is fun looking at all the failed predictions
Yet the warmist thrive

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

You must be so excited to have found a new denier website. Congrats.

amazing how far we've come when a site that merely digests amen repeats what alarmists and the pro-science folks say is a denier website.

I looked at the site briefly. All it did was reprint what alarmists said. So calling it a denier website is calling the people it quotes "deniers." Explain how you manage to defeat the whole paradox of your statement. If the Sierra Club or Greenpeace or Climate Progress or Skeptical Science published it would it still be denier?

This is some hardcore cognitive dissonance.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jclalor 12]

lawrocket

***You must be so excited to have found a new denier website. Congrats.

amazing how far we've come when a site that merely digests amen repeats what alarmists and the pro-science folks say is a denier website.

I looked at the site briefly. All it did was reprint what alarmists said. So calling it a denier website is calling the people it quotes "deniers." Explain how you manage to defeat the whole paradox of your statement. If the Sierra Club or Greenpeace or Climate Progress or Skeptical Science published it would it still be denier?

This is some hardcore cognitive dissonance.

The next time you see a post from the left than is similar in nature, please feel free to point it out.

[lawrocket 3]

So you're pretty much agreeing that the "predictions" are political in nature? Kinda like how CAFE standards would ruin the US auto industry. It's how I should view these projections of no more snow until we get a lot of snow. Or of the permanent drought in Texas. Or of the dozens of major hurricanes that would hit Us shores after Katrina.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

I, too, looked at the site briefly. If it just reprinted things in their entirety, and in context, that would be fine. But it selectively snips out damning bits and presents them with a singular purpose. That purpose is not education or commentary, it is mockery. I don't trust that the organizers of that site have the slightest interest in presenting a balanced view of the issue.

- Dan G

[jgoose71 0]

DanG

I, too, looked at the site briefly. If it just reprinted things in their entirety, and in context, that would be fine. But it selectively snips out damning bits and presents them with a singular purpose. That purpose is not education or commentary, it is mockery. I don't trust that the organizers of that site have the slightest interest in presenting a balanced view of the issue.

When you stop to consider that "97%" of the climate scientists subscribed to these comments on the web site, it kind of points out the problems using concensus as science.

I'm not a denier or an AGW fanatic. I'm just waiting for more than a concensus before I decide the science is settled. This website is a good example of why.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[SkyDekker 1,465]

jgoose71

***I, too, looked at the site briefly. If it just reprinted things in their entirety, and in context, that would be fine. But it selectively snips out damning bits and presents them with a singular purpose. That purpose is not education or commentary, it is mockery. I don't trust that the organizers of that site have the slightest interest in presenting a balanced view of the issue.

When you stop to consider that "97%" of the climate scientists subscribed to these comments on the web site, it kind of points out the problems using concensus as science.

I'm not a denier or an AGW fanatic. I'm just waiting for more than a concensus before I decide the science is settled. This website is a good example of why.

Excellent course of action:

When would you consider the science to be settled? What would have to happen?

I mean you can still find doctors and scientists who will claim that smoking really isn't that bad for you. Do you consider that science settled?

[Coreeece 2]

DanG

If it just reprinted things in their entirety, and in context, that would be fine.

Something a religious apologist might say?

DanG

But it selectively snips out damning bits and presents them with a singular purpose. That purpose is not education or commentary, it is mockery.

Isn't that how bad science is treated, especially among other scientists in the community? That is one of the motivating factors to get it right. If your science isn't accurate, you get laughed at - but then again, we are talking about weathermen...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

I, too, looked at the site briefly. If it just reprinted things in their entirety, and in context, that would be fine. But it selectively snips out damning bits and presents them with a singular purpose. That purpose is not education or commentary, it is mockery. I don't trust that the organizers of that site have the slightest interest in presenting a balanced view of the issue.

Correct. It's like when Bush said that there was "no doubt" that Iraq possessed and concealed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Or when he said ten days later on March 29, 03 that WMDs had be found.

No context? Youll find people who say the experts knew best and told us they had WMDs and we must trust them. You'll find people who insist that WMDs were found. You'll find other who insist that the missing heat will be found, I mean, the WMDs. And you've got people who say that the precAutionary principle suggested that there is no choice. And still others who would insist that even if the basis for some unlikely reason proves to be wrong that the action was the right thing to do.

Here's the thing: Bush and Cheney said we would find WMDs. We didn't. There is no need for context. Period. If we were to supply context, then it would be the dead and injured as a result. Much like I didn't believe for an instant it was about WMDs, I find myself not believing that climate science is about lowering the temperature of the planet so much as it is about destroying petrochemical industry and crating additional command economies.

So when a guy says that warm temperatures mean no more snow, I don't need context. They said something wouldn't happen anymore. It's happening. Enough said

Edited to add: the selected bits were actually said. The selected bits were chosen by the speaker and by the initial reports to be the stringers and most scary and most attention grabbing.

They got attention. And kept it. Remember when the Brown Christmas a couple years ago was due to climate change. As was Snowmageddon. In fact, every weather phenomena is now attributed to climate change. When everybody says everything and nothing will happen, you've got zero science going on

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

A better analogy would be if 97% of doctors agreed that eggs are bad for you, or that 97% of doctors said that peptic ulcers are caused by coffee and stress.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

No analogy required for this question:

When would you consider the science to be settled?

Lot's of people will say they will wait for the science to be settled. But how would they know it has?

[lawrocket 3]

SkyDekker

No analogy required for this question:

When would you consider the science to be settled?

When the scientists stop asking for funding to keep studying it

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

SkyDekker

No analogy required for this question:

When would you consider the science to be settled?

Lot's of people will say they will wait for the science to be settled. But how would they know it has?

Science is never really settled, but a good start would be when observations begin to comport with predictions.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Two different people two different answers.

No wonder people keep saying the science isn't settled.

[lawrocket 3]

SkyDekker

Two different people two different answers.

No wonder people keep saying the science isn't settled.

I am not the objective authority, sir. All I can speak of is my own thinking on the subject. I speak for myself and nobody else. On that thought, nobody speaks for me, either. I don't expect others to think as I do, and I hope I don't think just like everybody else.

asked a question. I answered it. There is no right or wrong answer

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

lawrocket

***Two different people two different answers.

No wonder people keep saying the science isn't settled.

I am not the objective authority, sir. All I can speak of is my own thinking on the subject. I speak for myself and nobody else. On that thought, nobody speaks for me, either. I don't expect others to think as I do, and I hope I don't think just like everybody else.

asked a question. I answered it. There is no right or wrong answer

But you have stated before that the science was settled. Yet, there is still lots of funding being requested and approved. So by your own definition the science isn't settled.

You are contradicting yourself.

[lawrocket 3]

Some is settled. Some is not. We know that CO2 causes reflection of long wave IR. Settled. What is the sensitivity of the climate to it?

We don't know. We don't. Science isn't settled. This is why I suggest that there is a certain amount of bullying that is being seen. Remember when questioning the authorities and experts was considered to be the path to enlightenment and progress?

We are right to ask questions even if we are shown to be wrong

My wife is hotter than your wife.