No. of Recommendations: 1
Dude, how could I reference slide 7/8 if I hadn't watched it?
Clearly, you aren't reading for content and have no intention of actually addressing the point.

There's a difference between skimming something and really watching it.

As I said - if you watched it, work on your synthesis. It is missing any demonstration of application.

If you watched - and by watched it I meant sat there and actually took it in - you did it through the warped prism of obfuscation of a proven liar and a shill. You have been taken in. Completely.

You are basing your BULLCRAP - your utter, unfettered BULLCRAP on Christopher Frickin' Monckton! Again - you obviously had NO idea how much of a charlatan this creep was. That's not my fault. I know you must feel like an idiot being shown that you are in the same camp as such a clown - but take some responsibility for your stupid tendency to believe a snake-oil salesman and start actually thinking about this rather than slipping around covered in the bad medicine he peddles.

And address these points - and don't try to worm your pathetic way out of it by saying "oh, it's a different time frame on the chart":

There are four fundamental problems with using these values to "predict" temperatures and attributing them to the IPCC:

1. The IPCC does not "predict" anything on this matter – they make multiple projections assuming different future emissions scenarios. This may sound trivial, but it’s a very important distinction. Monckton narrows the analysis to a single scenario (A2) and labels it a prediction.

2. Temperature rise for the A2 scenario is very unlikely to be linear, and single values in °C / century are inappropriate when looking at temperatures for time periods of less than a century. This is particularly problematic when looking at very short time periods early in this century, which are likely to exhibit less warming than later in the century.

3. These equations predict the equilibrium temperature response, which is the final temperature change once the climate has fully adjusted to a change in CO2. It does not represent the temperature expected for the year that CO2 concentration reaches the value used in the equation (and will always be higher than this value). The IPCC is abundantly clear on this point.

4. The IPCC never uses or presents these values to project global temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

Which is to say, you are a troll.

Says the master. Hilarious.
Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.