Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Yes, all these bullshit sites this Insane racist moron posts are funded by Big Energy. This clown claims to be currently working for Big Energy, though he's also made a lot of other claims about being a salesman, and involved in computer science, etc. Meanwhile, he spends his (supposedly working) days posting here and likely other political sites. Sounds like a VERY unreliable sort to me. He wouldn't have lasted a week at MegaCorp.

Just one example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center..._Global_Change

Dood. First, you are stooping to Ad hominem and, second, never trust wikipedia on controversial subjects.

Here is the bio of the author of one of the sites I use: https://realclimatescience.com/who-is-tony-heller/

A partial list:

BS Geology, Arizona State University
Masters Electrical Engineering, Rice University
Boston University Geology
Northern Arizona University Computer Science
Colorado State University Computer Science
University of New Mexico Geochemistry

Lifelong environmentalist.
I testified at my first Congressional hearing in support of Wilderness in 1972.
I fought for the Clean Air and Water acts
Wilderness Ranger Cibola National Forest, New Mexico
Wilderness Ranger Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico
Currently battling the City of Boulder, Colorado to stop development on the South Boulder Wetlands
Full time cyclist for all my local transportation, for the past 40 years

Teacher.
Science teacher, Athletic Director and Soccer Coach at Oak Creek Ranch School, Arizona
Math teacher at Phoenix Country Day School
Substitute teacher at Murphy School District, Phoenix Arizona
Computer instructor at Tomball College, Texas

Geologist.
Geothermal research at Los Alamos National Labs
Oil shale research at Los Alamos National Labs
Thermodynamic research of methane hydrates at Los Alamos National Labs
Volcano research at Los Alamos National Labs
Safety Analysis Report for the Permian Basin DOE nuclear waste disposal site
Volunteer curator Arizona Mineral Museum

Electrical Engineer
Compaq/SGI MIPS consortium design team
Power PC design team IBM/Apple/Motorola (Used in most game consoles over the last three decades, and PowerMacs)
Sandia Labs computer architect
Sandia Labs representative to Al Gore’s Bankers Trust key escrow consortium
Cyrix Media GX microprocessor design team manager
Raycer Graphics OpenGL graphics processor verification lead
Design manager Hitachi/ST SH5 microprocessor
Verification lead MemoryLogix microprocessor
Founder, design lead Visual Media video effects/editing software
OpenGL driver development ATI
Itanium/i7 design team Intel (very likely being used by you right now)
Sped up Helicos DNA sequencing algorithm by 50X
Sped up NCAR weather microphysics kernel by 500X
Ported NCAR’s radiative transfer model to GPU
Ported NCAR’s WRF weather model to Windows
Drone visualization and control software for the US military
Medical device control systems (under NDA)
Virtual reality visualization design (under NDA)
Radio control and visualization software (under NDA)

[watsup1000]

"Question authority".
I do. But buying into right-wing propaganda talking points in not "questioning authority" in the proper manner. It must involve serious reason and thought.

" people here are providing and make up your own mind."
The "people here" are not scientists. I trust the hundreds and thousands of climate scientists who have provided the data that shows the facts, which is manmade global warming.

" And I believe in trusting SCIENCE, not biased "scientists", or right and left wing talking points. You should try it. "

Psychological projection. You provide nothing but right-wing talking points and claim that the scientists that do the research are "biased", but claim that it is me who is avoiding facts.
Guess again.

[watsup1000]

Hmmm....as I look through your list, there are a lot of names, but I don't even see one that is listed as "Climate Scientist". As such, you already lessen the need to review your article more deeply since it is quite clear that it is just a bunch of pure OPINION without the in-depth SCIENTIFIC research needed to justify it.
You do know that science is done by RESEARCH and not by petition and ballot, right?

[watsup1000]

Yes, propaganda. If it is about climate science but it is not based on scientific research, but rather just happens to be one person's biased opinion, then, yes, it fall under the heading of "propaganda".
Find me a peer-researched article and then I might consider it to be a valid input.

[Chicks]

Sigh. We've debunked this Tony Heller / Steven Goddard clown earlier in this very thread. Some simply refuse to learn. He's a crackpot.

https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.c...s-tony-heller/

First, you should know that I’m pretty much a nobody in the climate debate. I’m laughed at by all climatologists. I’m not even taken seriously by true climate skeptics. I don’t have a degree in climatology. I haven’t written a single academic paper about climate change and I don’t have a job related to climatology or the weather. What I do have is a blog and a Twitter account. And as it turns out, that’s pretty much all you need to be a somebody in the climate debate.

[watsup1000]

First, you should know that I’m pretty much a nobody in the climate debate. I’m laughed at by all climatologists. I’m not even taken seriously by true climate skeptics. I don’t have a degree in climatology. I haven’t written a single academic paper about climate change and I don’t have a job related to climatology or the weather. What I do have is a blog and a Twitter account. And as it turns out, that’s pretty much all you need to be a somebody in the climate debate.

HUGE LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Sigh. We've debunked this Tony Heller / Steven Goddard clown earlier in this very thread. Some simply refuse to learn. He's a crackpot.

https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.c...s-tony-heller/

They hate him so much they create a web site devoted to it.

He's over the target.

Read his stuff. See the information he presents from NASA, the MSM and other respected sources over the last century. It's all there.

But going to that site and believing everything they say is like going to a site called "IHATEJOBIDEN.COM" to "debunk" Biden.

No, he is not debunked. The reason? Most of the information in his videos is not his. It is from sources like NASA, NOAA, The NYT, and a plethora of others. Your quote reminds me of the quote from the defendant as stated by the cop on the witness stand in My Cousin Vinny, "I shot the clerk."

Context, my friend.

And speaking of context, that whole diatribe on the site is the equivalent of Schiff's comedic rewrite of the famous ukranian phone call. It's opinion stated as if from the target's mouth.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by watsup1000

"Question authority".
I do. But buying into right-wing propaganda talking points in not "questioning authority" in the proper manner. It must involve serious reason and thought.

What IS a "right wing talking point". What IS a left wing talking point? That is usually just a label given by someone who doesn't like the point being made. It is an attempt to discredit something being said with a label. It is also weak sauce.

Thing is, many "____ wing talking points" are spot on. So the only thing the label communicates is the writer's attitude regarding the statement.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by watsup1000

HUGE LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, this clown would be amusing if he weren't so dangerous. Here's a great Wikipedia article on the whole idiotic climate denier industry - yes, it's an industry, funded entirely by Big Energy, whose money goes to disgusting Repube candidates. They're all fools, just like our resident Insane slimeball, who is one of the very few here willfully ignorant enough to pretend to believe this nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by watsup1000

Yes, propaganda. If it is about climate science but it is not based on scientific research, but rather just happens to be one person's biased opinion, then, yes, it fall under the heading of "propaganda".
Find me a peer-researched article and then I might consider it to be a valid input.

Indeed. There are no peer-reviewed articles by the deniers, as they aren't practicing science, but rather propaganda. Only a fool would be sucked in by their propaganda. Sadly, there are far too many fools in this country, particularly among those in the reich-wing.