climate hockey stick defeated


Well-known member
Hundreds of species going extinct, and super sized storms, floods and droughts killing thousands of people is funny?

You live in the Pacific region don't you? How could you have missed all of the super typhoons?

The time has come for judging the dead,

and for rewarding your servants the prophets

and your people who revere your name,

both great and small—

and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”

Hundreds of species going extinct because Americans and only Americans are not willing to spend trillions of dollars on highly questionable global warming projects, goals, research, and mandates? Can you not see how silly this is?


Well-known member
I think I'd like a GFP cat . . .

Looks like something Hollywood might claim came out of the containment building of a hot nuclear reactor. Take my word for it, nobody glows coming out of the containment area of a hot nuclear reactor.


Well-known member
Denial . . .


Oceanic dead zones . . .
Causes of droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, famines, and so forth are real mysteries to tribal barbarians who know nothing of science or who do not understand how to interpret scientific data.


Well-known member
OK.... so what revolutions are your wind turbines circulating at, and what species of birds are the majority of victims?

The turbines in the Thames Estuary are 150 meters high and revolve quite slowly, actually.
You want to get precise, I can see that, so let's do it.
I'll research to discover what the victim rates are here.
Wind turbines: A source of massive amounts of non-biodegrading waste. What happens when wind turbines have to be torn down? The largest parts have to be cut up and shipped to burial sites and buried at least 30' below ground, at huge costs to the consumers of electricity.

Wind turbines will create 43 million tonnes of waste by 2050

February 6, 2020 reve
One of the biggest costs of wind energy actually comes after it’s lifecycle.
Wind turbines are often too big and sturdy to be crushed, recycled or repurposed because they are built to withstand hurricane-force gusts.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates the US will remove 8,000 wind turbines in the next four years.
This is because it is decomissioning older turbines, most of which were built a decade ago. In those days installations were less than a fifth of what they are now.
And shipping them to landfill is a logistical challenge because they have to be broken up, shipped and buried in pits at least 30 feet deep.
The University of Cambridge estimates wind turbine blades will generate 43 million tonnes of waste by 2050.
While the majority of wind turbine components can be recycled, particularly steel and copper wires, the fibreglass blades can’t.


Well-known member
No? In the UK we've busted so many records for hottest months, hottest year, and this summer really did crank up our temperatures.
Nope.... most of us here just don't believe you.

And because the World acted fast, about thirty years ago, banning various gases used in air conditioning and freezing systems, the ozone layers have almost closed up again over the poles. Oh yeah! 30 years...... yeah! Look at that for evidence.

Hmmmm..... well, the ice is going, and you and I can both see that. So the sea will be rising..... that's a no brainer. Bingo!

Very backward thinking, that. Our inner cities have benefitted so much from exclusion zones for large dirty engines. But you never witnessed a smog in your life.... can't have, or you wouldn't be chucking the 'no benefits and we are all still alive' stuff about. London smogs were so dense that sometimes I could not see 7 feet in front of me. Thousands died each year from respiratory failures caused by smog. And today folks in their forties can't imagine what a smog was like.

No change, eh?

They are amazing. Faster acceleration than ic vehicles. Our F1 racers are hybrid, you know.
Sad fact of life: Creating energy has inescapable side effects that cannot be avoided, and yet fossil fuels are still the least expensive, most effective, and best source of energy yet. There is no alternative energy source that does not have huge drawbacks as well. Batteries from electric energy sources have a limited life span, limited sustainable output compared to fossil fuels, and used batteries remain a hazardous waste for decades.

While most EV components are much the same as those of conventional cars, the big difference is the battery. While traditional lead-acid batteries are widely recycled, the same can't be said for the lithium-ion versions used in electric cars.

EV batteries are larger and heavier than those in regular cars and are made up of several hundred individual lithium-ion cells, all of which need dismantling. They contain hazardous materials, and have an inconvenient tendency to explode if disassembled incorrectly.
"Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%," says Dr Anderson. "In some parts of the world it's considerably less."


Well-known member
What did Exxon see that you don't?

Exxon saw:
Exxon cannot see. It is a corporation, not a person. What did scientists see who worked at Exxon? The same things that other scientists also saw. How did Exxon scientists interpret the data they were seeing? Like other scientists did or did not do, as always. Just because a scientist works at Exxon does not make him infallible, nor are Exxon scientists unaffected by bias, persuasion, delusion, misinterpretations, and so forth.


Well-known member
The ozone hole has diminished considerably.
A good thing that we responded early enough..... about thirty years ago, to see results like that today.
You can see them too. :)

Well, unfortunately at this time, the ice is going, melting...... now why could that be? Warming, possibly?

Ah, but one of the benefits of thinking 'clean' is that people stay healthier; it's one of the benefits of trying to clean up our environs.

And we are saving so much of our money! Now that should appeal to you, you seem paranoid about everyone trying to rip you off... No? Our new homes are very easy to keep warm in winter, and again, this reduces greenhouse gases whilst helping our pockets.

I expect that you enjoy good profits in what you do?
And research is continually increasing battery performance while reducing costs.

Commerce, Industry, retail and travel all provide good services to their communities.... don't moan if those workers get decent livelihoods out of their work.

We have been discussing bird-strike deaths caused by wind-turbines, as if high rise buildings in general didn't inflict similar injuries.

So when I saw a team of engineers leaving one of the wind-farm launches I asked about this. They don't get too many problems with gulls because they don't fly straight and fast, but a colony of Northern Divers spend the winter around the area of the London Array and they do fly fast/straight which meant that at night they were hitting the turbines. But after installation all the turbines were fitted with very bright red fixed and flashing lights and these seem to have helped considerably.

Obviously some members are very concerned about bird-strikes on wind generators, and no doubt show equal concern over road-kill and such incidents. It's nice to converse with nature lovers like that. :)

Are fact-checkers the same people who do peer-review for secular scientific publications? If so, that may explain why fact-checkers found that Al Gore's prediction that the North Pole would be ice-free by the summer of 2013 was "mostly true."

Our ruling
Posts claim Al Gore said in 2009 that the North Pole "will be ice-free in the summer by 2013 because of man-made global warming."

Gore said something similar. Citing researchers during a 2009 climate change conference, Gore said there was a 75% chance that ice in the Arctic could be gone during at least some summer months within five to seven years. Reports indicate that he misrepresented the details of the research.

The post is accurate but needs additional information. We rate it Mostly True.


Well-known member
Well, your perception as to how it was around your house really doesn't do much to contradict the fact that the last three summers were hotter than any previous ones.

Yes, you do, but using your perceptions of things around your place, doesn't even qualify as data. It would qualify as "outlier", though.

Sorry, it's not data.

(tries to change subject)

Nice try.

Closing faster than predicted.

(Waytogo is shocked! to learn that warmer seas produce more precipitation)

"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."



Yep. Warmer seas, more water in the air, more precipitation, and the ice sheet in the center of the continent grows. Notice the extreme losses at the edge. This is the big worry now, since that means ice shelves, some as large as states, can break off and drift north to melt.

So that means that even as the ice cap grows, Antarctica has a net loss of ice?


Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss

Antarctica showing ice loss between 1996 and 2005 Antarctic ice loss between 1996 and 2006, overlaid on a Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) mosaic image of Antarctica. The colors indicate the speed of the ice loss. Purple/red is fast. Green is slow. Image credit: NASA
› Larger view PASADENA, Calif. - Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by NASA and university scientists.

In a first-of-its-kind study, an international team led by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine, estimated changes in Antarctica's ice mass between 1996 and 2006 and mapped patterns of ice loss on a glacier-by-glacier basis. They detected a sharp jump in Antarctica's ice loss, from enough ice to raise global sea level by 0.3 millimeters (.01 inches) a year in 1996, to 0.5 millimeters (.02 inches) a year in 2006.

The same thing is going on in Greenland. There's more precipitation, even as the coastline is melting faster and faster.

The extra snowfall is helping to slow the rise in sea level, but Greenland is now a major net loser of ice, and Antarctica is not far behind. As your source points, out, the balance is shifting toward melting on the ice caps, too.
So it's hot this year in some places? Big whoop. 40 years ago the misguided secularists were raising alarms about global cooling and they produced the data from hundreds of years to back up their claims. Not much has changed since then, except that they flipped the narrative and now claim hundreds of years of data shows the earth is warming. Alarmists need to calm down, stop worrying, even trust God to keep earth habitable until He returns to judge the wicked.

Genesis 8:22
While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease


Well-known member
1100 to 1300ad and was warmer & 1600 -1700 was cooler but that does not fit your narrative

which brings us full circle , the hockey stick graph is a lie


data that doesn't fit your narrative is everywhere
along with the failed predictions & The hockey stick graph lie

40 years from now
Michael Mann's hockey stick proved to be broken.


Well-known member
It fits the data. Your problem is you don't accept the recent data.

Which brings us full circle , the hockey stick graph was accurately predicted by James Hansen, thirty years in advance. No point in denying the fact. Data that doesn't fit your narrative is everywhere, along with the failed denier predictions of global cooling.

You should probably know that most deniers now admit the fact of warming (that's the "hockey stick" thing you were talking about) but just deny that humans have anything to do with it. Would you like to learn how we know they're wrong about that, too?
James Hansen was a climatologist speculator. He made a living studying data and producing speculations about the data. That does not mean he was right.

The first NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) global temperature analysis was published in 1981. Hansen and his co-author analyzed the surface air temperature at meteorological stations focusing on the years from 1880 to 1985. Temperatures for stations closer together than 1000 kilometers were shown to be highly correlated, especially in the mid-latitudes, providing a way to combine the station data to provide accurate long-term variations. They concluded that global mean temperatures can be determined even though meteorological stations are typically in the Northern hemisphere and confined to continental regions. Warming in the past century was found to be 0.5-0.7 °C, with warming similar in both hemispheres.[24] When the analysis was updated in 1988, the four warmest years on record were all in the 1980s. The two warmest years were 1981 and 1987.[25] During a senate meeting on June 23, 1988, Hansen reported that he was ninety-nine percent certain the earth was warmer then than it had ever been measured to be, there was a clear cause and effect relationship with the greenhouse effect and lastly that due to global warming, the likelihood of freak weather was steadily increasing.[26]

Hansen's paper was published in 1981 and purported to be his interpretations of data dating back decades or even centuries.

Before 1970 the scientific consensus was that the earth was cooling, even though there were some who feared the earth was warming. All fears of man-made climate changes are speculations without real substance.

Concern pre-1970s[edit]

In 1923, there was concern about a new ice age and Captain Donald Baxter MacMillan sailed toward the Arctic sponsored by the National Geographical Society to look for evidence of advancing glaciers.[11][12]

In 1926, a Berlin astronomer was predicting global cooling but that it was "ages away".[13]

Concerns that a new ice age was approaching was revived in the 1950s.[14] During the Cold War, there were concerns by Harry Wexler that setting off atom bombs could be hastening a new ice age from a nuclear winter scenario.[15]

J. Murray Mitchell showed as early as 1963 a multidecadal cooling since about 1940.[1] At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966, Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."


Well-known member
Because the dope who wrote this foolishness doesn't understand the most basic principles of mathematics, he doesn't realize that changing the base temperature will have exactly zero effect on the shape of the curve.

He's probably the dumbest denier out there. And he managed to fool someone. :chuckle:
Hockey stick hokey.

Climate Myth...

Hockey stick is broken
“In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" -- substantially affecting the temperature index.” (John McLaughlin)


Well-known member
I'll see your Gen 8:22 and raise you...

Revelation 16
8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
9 And men were scorched with great heat...

Clearly, the 'global warming' spoken of in Rev. 16 is God-made, not man-made.

Revelation 16

King James Version

1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.
3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.
5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.
8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.​



Well-known member
It's not going to end, and no credible climate scientist makes doomsday predictions about anthropogenic global warming.
God says He will destroy heaven and earth. You say He won't. That makes you a liar.

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.


Well-known member
It either means what it says or it doesn't, but that point is irrelevant. What matters is that global warming does not predict that winter will cease, so it is pointless to claim that Genesis 8:22 contradicts it.
Global warming is something that the fearful and unbelieving believe will destroy the planet and humankind if not addressed with trillions of dollars very soon. Those secularists who have bought into that lie prove they don't understand the Bible.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday said she thinks that there is an urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will "destroy the planet" in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue, no matter the cost.


Well-known member
KJV, but if it's wrong it wouldn't be the first time the KJV is inaccurate.

Great, now let's move back to Genesis 8:22 and how it does not contradict global warming. Global warming does not say that spring, fall and winter will cease and that there will only be one long hot summer. Global warming says that the global average temperature will gradually rise a few degrees, which is in fact what we are seeing now and have been seeing for decades.
Let's assume secular scientists have been right about the Ice Age. If the earth was once an icebox like people think then global warming turned out to be a very good thing for those of us living today. Let God handle the weather, especially since men can do very little but talk while not being able to change anything.