Point to one or two catastrophic climate events that have actually happened. Not an unusual spike that last a few days or weeks but a pronounced continuing dramatic negative climatic event.
There was a company called acme? I thought that was on a roadrunner cartoon. Mind you I could say the same about denialist sits like wattsupwiththat- they have been consistently wrong for decades now so why should I buy their bulldust? But Brandolinis law - you prove that “the scientists have been wrong by using citations and links please
I am happy to provide citations BUT only in response to those that also do so. I am not playing the “game” of “prove it Nayah! Nayahl! You is Wong cos sum bloke at der pub sed so an I believe him not you!” You make the claim - you back it and I will analyse the source and refute it with citations
Because you are not using citations - if you were I may have to have a second think. Mind you Jack does and I usually take his links apart
I reference things all the damned time. Feel free to go back and look. Well, since the reference will not even load, and I have never heard of any predictions about how much things would warm in the future so I am counting that as a fail. Care to try again? Once again, I have given multiple references, so exactly which claims are you talking about? And once again, you throw around a lot of accusations, never addressing anything addressed to you and not referencing anything that can even be examined. Once again, in exactly what way am I a "denier"? I have only asked like 10 times now, and you absolutely refuse to answer.
Sorry, that is a lazy excuse. To me, unsourced claims are empty claims. Might as well be like most in here, that expect us to believe anything they say, and it is all true because they believe it is true.
Let’s look at an example of sea level rise predictions. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018ef000991 So we have had projections since 1980 of 0.09m to 2.54m and everywhere in between. And today there is still great uncertainty. But if we guess it’s going to be somewhere between 0.09m and 2.54m we have pretty good odds of being “spot on”. SMH.
I don't expect liberals to believe anything I say no matter how well sourced. I suspect they are not able to even understand contrary information It is a symptom of the woke mind virus.
Many papers incorporated into the IPCC predictions are used by deniers in their blogs to argue the opposite. They often draw conclusions that are not present in the actual conclusions of the papers themselves, or put disproportionate weight on a handful of papers. I know this because I used to dig deep into these blog papers to stimulate some sort of honest debate going on this forum. I then realised that my opponents were not (barely not) interested in what I said and furthermore are not interested in any of the other mountains of evidence supporting AGW. So I don't bother now.
AGW folks cannot stand that folks aren't starving thanks to the moderation of the climate around the globe.. It goes against their Malthusian ways...
I understand your frustration. Since all of those predictions, a la Mann and his hockey stick, to Al Gore and his the entire NE US coastline under 12 feet of water... I mean y'all keep predicting, and the facts keep not supporting your brand of snake oil. At some point, can you agree that you're wasting your, and everyone else's time on this line of BS? I remember when your team still admitted that ~2.0 C a century was considered "natural" and not included in the wild speculation that your team field... When you cite the IPCC< you understand that very few folks still have any support for that junk science, right?
Al Gore, et al ----> not my problem. There are a range of predictions and I usually accept what's in the middle and adjust according ever so often to more recent data/predictions. Couldn't care less what others think or what politicians do.
Unless they are particularly well-educated, most members under 45 will probably not know who Carl Sagan is.
Unfortunately, acceptance of CO2 driven AGW does not “protect” one from being a climate science denier. The OP podcast demonstrated this quite clearly.
