OK, so then give us some examples of the predictions that pre-date the early 1970's. Look, I will be honest here and admit I am rather like your namesake. And have little patience for those that waste my time by simply denying something they do not like, then offering absolutely nothing to back up their claims. You think I am wrong, that is perfectly fine. Then give us a reference to show I am wrong. Don't just say so and leave it at that. That is what a child does, and I would like to at least assume none of us in here are children.
Oh. Another one who only wants to make fallacious arguments and has no interest in discussing actual science!
Since the end of the last ice age (about 10,000 years ago) the land under where the glaciers were is "rebounding". Just like when you take a weight off of a mattress the "level" of the mattress rises, the removal of the weight of glaciers allows the level of the land to rise. It isn't that the sea level is falling in those areas, it is that the level of the land is rising faster than the sea level.
This is the wonderful thing about science. It corrects itself when it is wrong. It is constantly refining it's models and the predictions based on those models. Why should I discuss predictions made from 50 years ago? You think we are working under the same assumptions and models from 50 years ago? We are not. Science deniers love to point out when some predictions were wrong as "proof" that scientists don't know what they are talking about when, in actuality, the predictions that were wrong have been updated with new information and new discoveries.
Well, to start with geologically we are still in an ice age. And will likely be in one for a couple of thousand more years. But 10 kya? At that point most of Canada and some big chunks of North America were still under vast ice sheets. And your definition needs some work. At roughly 11,500 years ago the current ice age started to end with the ice receding again. But that was not the "end of the ice age", not even close. And your date of 10 kya, most of the ice south of Canada was pretty much gone by then, but most of Canada was still under ice. As was much of Northern Europe still. And this can be easily proven, because your claim of 10 kya is at roughly 8000 BCE. And at that time Doggerland was still very much a thing. A large temperate land mass where the North Sea is today. And that did not finally slip under the ocean until around 6200 BCE, over two thousand years after you claim that the ice age "ended". If the ice age was already over as you claim, where in the hell did all that water come from? Here, in case you have never heard of Doggerland. This is what I mean about peddling junk science. You are very lose with the definitions and terminology used, which should not be done in a serious conversation about the topic. And your claims and dates are very much wrong when looking at the planet with geology. Here is the thing, there was no "science" behind that prediction. It was complete coprolite, as were a huge number of other ones. Like millions starving to death annually by the 1980s, the inability to breathe without gas masks by the 1990s, water being too polluted to drink and all of our rivers and lakes dying, the list just goes on and on and on. None of it was based in any kind of real science, it was scare stories told to try and cause people to do what they wanted out of fear. And I see the exact same thing, by many of the exact same people even today. I think what I find the most funny is that this is not even the first time I have tried to correct your incredibly bad junk science claims. And the most amazing thing is, apparently to you I am a "science denier" as well, even though I am schooling you in actual science. And to be honest, in general I place most "Climatology" right up there with Phrenology, Homeopathy, Parapsychology, and Pseudoarchaeology. It is just another junk science that a lot of people actually believe in, more because they want to believe in it than it is actually "science". But case in point, how much of the "climate predictions" of the last 5 decades have actually come true? I honestly can't think of any, not temperature rise, not sea level rise, not a damned thing. And when their claims are busted, they just "change the models" yet again, and make even more predictions that never come true. Because in a decade or so they once again adjust their models as nothing has come even close to matching their models.
You're schooling squat. I wasn't going to waste my time going into a detailed explanation of your claim that ocean levels are dropping in some places. I gave a one paragraph explanation that gave the essential ideas. (which I notice you have not refuted).
That is obvious. Yet another that only responds with as few words as possible, normally very in accurately, with no references. And it is not "my claim", it is a fact.
And why should I believe the new predictions are right when they are promulgated by the same people who made the wrong predictions?
I don’t know where to start with this - are car manufacturers wrong because they have kept producing better and better cars?
Glaciers have "inertia". They take thousands of years to melt. Sea level keeps rising for thousands of years after peak temperatures. This is basic stuff, and as usual, you don't know it. It's the pattern with the deniers, Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. The less someone knows about a topic, the more certain they are that their wrongness is actually right, and the more belligerent they get with their ignorance. Which is why it was mainly your side making those those predictions of cooling. The climate scientists were overwhelmingly predicting warming in the 1970s. Your problem is that you pay attention to media hysteria instead of actual science. Now, there were a few scientists predicting that increasing global dimming due to pollution would decrease temps, but that was due to an error of predicting future pollution levels, not a science error. And they quickly changed when the data showed them to be wrong. And none of it has to do with climate scientists. You're deflecting. So, what's more likely? That you screwed up, or that all of the smartest people in the world are wrong, and somehow only you and a few other brilliant patriots managed to figure it out? You say it's the latter? And yet you're demonstrably wrong about almost everything? Interesting, the mental gymnastics required for that. Pretty much all of them. If you think otherwise, it's because you don't know the actual science and the actual predictions. You need to ask your masters why they fed you the fake stories. Climate science has such credibility specifically because of its excellent record of predictions. In contrast, your side is correctly classified as politically-driven pseudoscience cranks specifically because of your unblemished record of failure over the past 50 years. Remember, you can't gaslight anyone who isn't part of your cult. We know the facts, so we know you're babbling nonsense.
Especially as none of the predictions have been right. There have been a slew of them over the last three decades. And almost all of them laughably bad. Worst hurricane seasons in centuries, only to be followed by several years of no hurricanes. Incredible sea level rise, which never happened. Then years of drought over much of the US, which in reality saw years of above average rainfall. Sometimes single storms that dropped two or three years of rain in under a week. I have even challenged many multiple times to find predictions from the past four decades that turned out to be correct. And not ones that have been "retconned" over the years but actual predictions that happened as they claimed they would. And interestingly enough, I have yet to ever see any. Oh, I have seen retconned ones, but looking back at the original predictions it was not accurate.
I'll also add that changes in ice distribution change sea levels. As Greenland and Antarctica lose ice, they lose mass, so they "lose" gravity. The adjacent ocean water no longer humps up around them so much, so the nearby sea levels drop, and sea levels further away rise more.
The temp predictions have been spot on. The sea level predictions have been spot on. The hurricane strenght predictions have been spot on. The general increase in drought in the western USA, spot on. The increase in torrential rainfall events, spot on. Sure, your fake predictions haven't come true, but the real ones have.
If the Acme Car Company sold nothing but defective cars for fifty years, I would not buy their latest model expecting it to be improved.
Which is why we are still in an ice age. And in case you did not know, over the past 10 thousand years or so those glaciers have expanded and contracted multiple times. Several times in the era of recorded history. But you said it ended 10,000 years ago. It did not, that is so inaccurate it falls under "junk science". Oh, and as apparently you have absolutely no concept what "my side" actually is, I find it hilarious that you are accusing "my side" of being the one predicting the cooling. Tell me, is Doctor Kenneth Watt "on my side"? He was one of the leading spokesmen for the Global Cooling movement. And he is now one of the leading spokesmen for the "Global Warming" movement. Once again, you are peddling nothing but junk science, based on what you believe and not reality. But you once again said "my side", so back that up. What is "my side"? What exactly do I believe? I bet you do not have a freaking clue, you are only mad because I am attacking your grossly unscientific posts with actual facts, so that obviously makes me the enemy. But here, once again something called a "reference". https://www.thenewsstar.com/story/life/2017/05/03/environmentalists-dead-wrong/101216452/ https://scottishcare.org/climate-change-and-social-care-collective-hot-report-2/ SO tell me, exactly how is he on "my side"?
Prove it. Notice, I readily provide references to validate my claims. Don't just claim that your are right, provide actual references to prove your case. Oh, and what is "my side"?
Yep. That's what the hard data says. That data destroys your crazy theories, so you have to deny the data, hence why you're classifed as a denier. Oh, if you want to debate me, use my name. Don't pull the sleaze act. Well, yeah, I tend to agree with reality. Your point? My point is that none of them were warming than the holocene peak 8000 years ago, and none are warmer than the current warming spike. Did you have any sensible point to make? Why would you say that? I certainly never said or implied any such thing, so the idea must have come from you. Why do you believe such crazy things? If you can't debate me, just say so outright. Don't try faking stories about what I supposedly said. That craters your credibility.
OK, at this point I am absolutely done. You just now deliberately cut up a post of mine, and took almost every line completely out of context. Trying to imply that what I said was the exact opposite of what I actually said. And once again, providing absolutely no reference to any of your claims like always, and refusing to address the actual facts. Simply attempting to twist what I say into something else. Have a nice day, let me know if you ever want to have an honest and factual discussion that does not involve such stupid games.
And here's that pesky data again, showing that I'm right and you're wrong. Sea level has risen 10 meters in the last 8k years. Goodbye, Doggerland. I said what? Please address what I say, not what you wish I'd said. Right-wing crankdom is the actual cult. Global warming denial is just one of the many required beliefs of that cult. Given that he's a zoologist, how is he relevant to the issue of climate science? But hey, if you want to get your climate science from a zoologist, I can't stop you. I'll stick to getting it from atmospheric physicists with postdocs specializing in climate science. Anways, well done, in the way you're deflecting from the science. That's one thing you are skilled at.
No you don't. You just pretend you do. Sadly for you, "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" is not how science works, and it's all you have.
A "declare victory and retreat" speech so soon? Dang, I'm good. I cut out the whining, deflections and personal attacks, as has been standard protocol since the internet began. It's what good posters do. It's called irony. It's hilarious how upset you got when your own tactics were used against you. Bazinga. Don't fret. Given your posting history, everyone expected you to run, so you're not disappointing anyone.
Haven’t they? How about you back your claims? Firstly though I would like to see you point to WHO is making those claims
