"Yes, but that doesn't work anymore. That's weak."

[Athetotheist]

What are we to make of this?




Do they not realize that they're making Jesus out to be a liar?

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
(Matthew 24:35)

"He that loveth Me not, keepeth not My sayings. And the Word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me."
(John 14:24)

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #197]

You mock the evidence. Nevertheless, what irrefutable evidence has been supposedly been produced to prove the oceans are rising due to climate change?

"Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise."
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ic ... intent=121


"Global average sea level has risen 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880.

In 2023, global average sea level set a new record high—101.4 mm (3.99 inches) above 1993 levels.
.....

If we are able to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, U.S. sea level in 2100 is projected to be around 0.6 meters (2 feet) higher on average than it was in 2000.

On a pathway with high greenhouse gas emissions and rapid ice sheet collapse, models project that average sea level rise for the contiguous United States could be 2.2 meters (7.2 feet) by 2100 and 3.9 meters (13 feet) by 2150."
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u ... -sea-level

Marke: Not a single global warming prediction has come true thus far but at least the adherents to global warming alarmism have learned not to post short term predictions that will no doubt be debunked in short periods of time as the predictions continue to fail.

50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called ‘experts’ Are 0-50 | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called ‘experts’ Are 0-50
By Mark J. Perry

September 23, 2019

This week Myron Ebell (director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) and Steven J. Milloy published a post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog titled “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions:”
Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.
More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science. While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited.
The first 27 failed alarmist predictions below are from the CEI post (many were previously collected and posted by Tony Heller on RealClimateScience, see Tony’s video below) and the additional 14 doomsday predictions the climate alarmists got wrong were added by John Nolte in a Breitbart post titled “Climate ‘Experts’ are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions“:
For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong. In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened. And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #0]

American Enterprise Institute - AEI

News and Controversies
In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere," in a letter describing the IPCC as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent."

The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian.

Since the time of that report, AEI has continued to receive money from Exxon Mobil — a total of at least $1,520,000.

AEI and the head of its energy studies department, Benjamin Zycher, have faced criticism for distorting scientific findings on global warming from Jeffrey Sachs, a leading environmental studies scholar, Columbia University professor, economist, and UN advisor. Zycher had once criticized Sachs for misconstruing the IPCC conclusions on global warming; however, Sachs responded, "It is Zycher who distorts, misrepresents, or simply ignores the IPCC conclusions."

Sachs went on to write:

"It is time for Zycher and, indeed, the American Enterprise Institute, to come clean. The AEI, despite its roster of distinguished academics, has failed to be constructive in the climate debate. It's time that the AEI puts forward a strategy to achieve the globally agreed objective of avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/A ... _Institute

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)

The organization is primarily associated with tobacco disinformation and climate change denial, having received substantial funding from companies and political advocacy groups in the tobacco, energy, technology, and automotive industries.

News and Controversies
In January 2011, William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst with the the Competitive Enterprise Institute, charged that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) revocation of a permit for a West Virginia mountaintop removal mining operation - Spruce 1 Mine - "would trade jobs for protection of an insect that lives for a day and isn't even an endangered species." The EPA, however, did not veto the permit because of a bug, but because the operation would have "buried more than six miles of high-quality streams" and "polluted downstream waters as a result," with inadequate mitigations offered by petitioner Arch Coal.

.....

Between May 18 and 28 of 2006, CEI's aired two television ads in 14 cities. These ads promoted carbon dioxide as a positive factor in the environment, as well as argued that global warming was not a concern. One ad asserted that CO2 was misrepresented as a pollutant, stating that "it’s essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in... They call it pollution. We call it life." The other stated that the world's glaciers are "growing, not melting... getting thicker, not thinner." Both ads cited Science articles as evidence. However, the editor for Science stated that the ad "misrepresents the conclusions of the two cited Science papers... by selective referencing". The author of the articles, Curt Davis, director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said CEI was deliberately misrepresenting his previous research. "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," Davis said.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/C ... _Institute

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #0]

American Enterprise Institute - AEI

News and Controversies
In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere," in a letter describing the IPCC as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent."

The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian.

Since the time of that report, AEI has continued to receive money from Exxon Mobil — a total of at least $1,520,000.

AEI and the head of its energy studies department, Benjamin Zycher, have faced criticism for distorting scientific findings on global warming from Jeffrey Sachs, a leading environmental studies scholar, Columbia University professor, economist, and UN advisor. Zycher had once criticized Sachs for misconstruing the IPCC conclusions on global warming; however, Sachs responded, "It is Zycher who distorts, misrepresents, or simply ignores the IPCC conclusions."

Sachs went on to write:

"It is time for Zycher and, indeed, the American Enterprise Institute, to come clean. The AEI, despite its roster of distinguished academics, has failed to be constructive in the climate debate. It's time that the AEI puts forward a strategy to achieve the globally agreed objective of avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/A ... _Institute

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)

The organization is primarily associated with tobacco disinformation and climate change denial, having received substantial funding from companies and political advocacy groups in the tobacco, energy, technology, and automotive industries.

News and Controversies
In January 2011, William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst with the the Competitive Enterprise Institute, charged that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) revocation of a permit for a West Virginia mountaintop removal mining operation - Spruce 1 Mine - "would trade jobs for protection of an insect that lives for a day and isn't even an endangered species." The EPA, however, did not veto the permit because of a bug, but because the operation would have "buried more than six miles of high-quality streams" and "polluted downstream waters as a result," with inadequate mitigations offered by petitioner Arch Coal.

.....

Between May 18 and 28 of 2006, CEI's aired two television ads in 14 cities. These ads promoted carbon dioxide as a positive factor in the environment, as well as argued that global warming was not a concern. One ad asserted that CO2 was misrepresented as a pollutant, stating that "it’s essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in... They call it pollution. We call it life." The other stated that the world's glaciers are "growing, not melting... getting thicker, not thinner." Both ads cited Science articles as evidence. However, the editor for Science stated that the ad "misrepresents the conclusions of the two cited Science papers... by selective referencing". The author of the articles, Curt Davis, director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said CEI was deliberately misrepresenting his previous research. "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," Davis said.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/C ... _Institute

Marke: Global warming is an emotional topic driven by strong biases on both sides. One side finds fault with the other and each side tends to promote only those facts that and narratives that support their favored side. I want to look at all publicans with an unbiased eye. I tend to oppose the radical global warming narratives for many reasons, not the least of which is the weakness of the arguments supporting the alarmist interpretations of data. Data is very limited and drawing alarmist conclusions based on limited data is not the right approach in my opinion.

Are hurricanes caused by global warming as so many alarmists insist? I think that is an unjustified conclusion since hurricanes have been around for thousands of years. And so forth.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #203]

Are hurricanes caused by global warming as so many alarmists insist? I think that is an unjustified conclusion since hurricanes have been around for thousands of years. And so forth.

It isn't that it causes hurricanes; it's what it does to them.

AI Overview
"While the total number of hurricanes globally may not be increasing, climate change is causing a rise in the intensity and severity of hurricanes, including more frequent and intense rainfall and stronger winds, particularly in the Atlantic basin."

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #203]

Are hurricanes caused by global warming as so many alarmists insist? I think that is an unjustified conclusion since hurricanes have been around for thousands of years. And so forth.

It isn't that it causes hurricanes; it's what it does to them.

AI Overview
"While the total number of hurricanes globally may not be increasing, climate change is causing a rise in the intensity and severity of hurricanes, including more frequent and intense rainfall and stronger winds, particularly in the Atlantic basin."

Marke: We are keeping better records and data from hurricane now than we were 100 years ago and yet one of the worst hurricanes on record occurred more than 100 years ago.

AI Overview
Learn more
The worst hurricanes in American history - July 5, 2024 ...
The 1900 Galveston hurricane, also known as the Great Galveston Hurricane, is the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history, killing an estimated 8,000 to 12,000 people, and is considered the worst hurricane in U.S. history.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #205]

We are keeping better records and data from hurricane now than we were 100 years ago and yet one of the worst hurricanes on record occurred more than 100 years ago.

AI Overview
Learn more
The worst hurricanes in American history - July 5, 2024 ...
The 1900 Galveston hurricane, also known as the Great Galveston Hurricane, is the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history, killing an estimated 8,000 to 12,000 people, and is considered the worst hurricane in U.S. history.

One of the worst on record.

AI Overview
The most intense hurricane in recorded history, based on both wind speed and pressure, is Hurricane Wilma in 2005 which reached a minimum pressure of 882 millibars (26.05 inches of mercury) and sustained winds of 185 mph.

There has definitely been an upward trend since 1900.

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #205]

We are keeping better records and data from hurricane now than we were 100 years ago and yet one of the worst hurricanes on record occurred more than 100 years ago.

AI Overview
Learn more
The worst hurricanes in American history - July 5, 2024 ...
The 1900 Galveston hurricane, also known as the Great Galveston Hurricane, is the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history, killing an estimated 8,000 to 12,000 people, and is considered the worst hurricane in U.S. history.

One of the worst on record.

AI Overview
The most intense hurricane in recorded history, based on both wind speed and pressure, is Hurricane Wilma in 2005 which reached a minimum pressure of 882 millibars (26.05 inches of mercury) and sustained winds of 185 mph.

There has definitely been an upward trend since 1900.

Marke: I don't agree that we can make such an assumption based on limited data that does not include hundreds of years of hurricane records. The Galveston hurricane wiped out an entire city, unlike most hurricanes today.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #207]

I don't agree that we can make such an assumption based on limited data that does not include hundreds of years of hurricane records. The Galveston hurricane wiped out an entire city, unlike most hurricanes today.

AI Overview
After the devastating 1900 hurricane, Galveston, TX, significantly improved hurricane preparedness by building a seawall, raising the city's elevation, and implementing a new government structure, known as the "Galveston Plan," to better manage recovery and future storms.

The same hurricane wouldn't do the same damage to the Galveston of today. Hurricane preparedness has improved but the storms have been getting more powerful, as illustrated by the Siesta Key experience.

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #207]

I don't agree that we can make such an assumption based on limited data that does not include hundreds of years of hurricane records. The Galveston hurricane wiped out an entire city, unlike most hurricanes today.

AI Overview
After the devastating 1900 hurricane, Galveston, TX, significantly improved hurricane preparedness by building a seawall, raising the city's elevation, and implementing a new government structure, known as the "Galveston Plan," to better manage recovery and future storms.

The same hurricane wouldn't do the same damage to the Galveston of today. Hurricane preparedness has improved but the storms have been getting more powerful, as illustrated by the Siesta Key experience.

Marke: Interpreting climate data is not an exact science by far. Some scientists claim the earth was once encased in an ice age. What caused the global warming that thawed the ice and was that caused by humans and was that a bad thing? Climate change alarmism is supported far more by theoretical and political ideas and ideologies than by scientific facts.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #209]

What caused the global warming that thawed the ice and was that caused by humans and was that a bad thing?

The fact that relatively small changes in external forcings can drive such a large planetary response during ice ages should serve as a cautionary example. This is because human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases push the Earth further out of the range of climate conditions that have characterised the past few million years.

Global temperatures were only around 4C colder during the last ice age than they are today. Under higher emissions scenarios with limited mitigation efforts, it is quite possible that the world may warm more in just over a century than it warmed over many thousands of years during the end of the last ice age.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-h ... -ice-ages/