We’ve been hearing this same crap for fifty plus years. It never happens. They just push the dates to frighten the newbie 18 year olds who don’t know any better.
@@climatebell It has has been exposed in pretty much every academic field, that we can no longer trust any so called expert or previously trusted government agency. Sad but true, ethics takes a back seat to group think.
I see where you went wrong - You were expecting a check off "Big Oil" but the media had lied to you. In fact Shell etc had been spending your 50 million and more on windmills and solar! The cheek of those people, investing in all kinds of energy.
No Tony, they are not mistakes. They know very well that their models are just junk and that those models give any result they want (GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out), so, this is all premeditated results and not mistakes...!!! As you say, it's all ´´Junk science´´...!!!
well, they know the models are utter failures. we know that CO2 has a 1.5 to 2.25% effect on the greenhouse. the issue is to get the models "certified" they have to accurately model a 100 year time frame. they always pick to start after 1850 and end prior to 1980 for their 100 year "test". the issue is these models at the most accurate use a CO2 effect of 5.5%, and some of them go as high as 7.5% impact of CO2. that is the value they use to get them to pass certification because of how little we understand chaos influences on climate and modeling. we know they use incorrect values. they know they use incorrect values. of course they will return utter trash results when modeling the future. but peddling these messages gets them more money.
One wonders which features they're selecting for those models. You can select features that have no correlation to rise/fall and create any kind of graph you like. You can even create fake data in the future that matches your desired outcome and train the model on that data. The model will, accordingly, produce the exact curve you want ti to create. Models are propaganda tools, not science. They stopped being science when someone paid for the model and the modelers knew what result their paymasters wanted.
Their entire premise is wrong, that CO2 increases will cause warming. That is the foundation of every climate crisis model, and why their models always fail over, and over again.
I hope you're well, Tony. Your voice sounds a little scratchy. I love how they push their predictions back 20 years every 20 years, and NEVER own their failed predictions.
I thought I couldn't get any more depressed, until I checked out a Nate Hagen's vid with a supposed expert on - just to know what we're up against. It's painful to listen to so much tripe but at least I now know how low the bar is for challenging these fantasists. In one part, Nate asks about CO2 being plant food and the "expert" (Stephan) evades the question just like a politician, changing the subject. But I can see how some people fall for it if they only ever hear it from one side and never make the effort to check out whether there even IS another side.
They are the real Signtists, they read the signs in the entrails, then walk around with their sandwich board signs proclaiming the end is nigh... sigh😅
"The dreams are all right enough, but the art of interpreting is lost. 1500 yr ago they were getting to do it so badly it was considered better to depend on chicken-guts & other naturally intelligent sources of prophecy, recognizing that when guts can't prophecy, it is no use for Ezekiel to go into the business. Prophecy went out with the chicken guts." - Mark Twain
i've long imagined a brief meeting every 5 years where the topic is "how do make it appear that our models don't suck" and the proposal is made, seconded and voted to "replace _t_ with _( t - 7 )_ and add a note at the end saying 'normalized anomaly'" and then they go over to diddy's place to swap cp.
It is really going to be a problem for Trump and all of us that pay for the bizarre climate agenda guidelines. For every one intelligent scientist, there are fifty dumb indoctrinated one that will fight Trump on every issue.
@@TonyHeller yep, he didn't study up on the subject much. Remember when he went to CA and met with the fire command for the Paradise fire and they all were blaming the fire on climate change. He didn't know what to say other than you must sweep your forests. Lol.
If the world was actually warming, it would have shown up in centimeters per year, not millimeters. Thermal expansion of water is a real thing. Water does expand at a given rate, linear. Wikipedia has it that most of the energy for Climate change has been stored in the oceans since 1970. A few months ago the media was screaming about how hot the water was in the Atlantic, now a La Nina in the Atlantic. Where did that heat go? Why weren't sea levels much higher?
Yep due to the massive ice sheets sitting on the land causing a bounce once they melted and then a slow decent after, im sure you already addressed this anyway Tony Heller , keep up the good work legend 👏 👍 😀 👌 🙌 😉!
Unfortunately, their authority is not imagined. Too many people take what they put out as proper science and truth, despite the goalposts-on-wheels and blatant fiddling about with data. It's disgusting.
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” ― Richard P. Feynman
So I wonder what will happen to the fort in Saint Augustine Florida that's built practically right on the water... it's been there since the late 1600's
According to AOC, when the Sea Levels rise on the EAST COAST, it will take another few years for the WEST COAST to reach the same level? Apparently there is a Great Land divide between the EAST COAST and the WEST COAST? she said, if there wasn’t a land divide between the two Oceans, then there wouldn’t be two Different Oceans Names!?
Hang on Tony - the NY sinking picture said it was sinking at 3 *centimetres* per year, not millimetres as you said. So does that invalidate anything you said later?
Tony, what are your thoughts on the Judd et al. study recently published in the Washington Post about the last 485 million year climate reconstruction model called PHanDa?
