It’s a summary of the IPCC models. You can read more about it here.
I would request you to use actual reports with date of publication/source.
Summaries can be less than accurate.
That shows you don’t understand what you’re looking at, even after I linked you to a multiple page explanation, complete with references and sources.
The outbreak in NY and NJ is only in specific communities with a high concentration of a particular faith/belief:
In the words of Christopher Hitchens, “Religion poisons everything”
Can you point to the reference?
I will give you a clue,It’s from IPCCs AR3 report. The “fudge factor” in this report is the forcings value given to Co2 and other greenhouse gasses during the last 100 years. An over estimation or underestimation of the contribution of carbon dioxide and other gasses will bring a change in the temperature predicted.
This is what IPCCs AR4 report has to say about climate models predictions between 1988-2012-
Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in
global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years. There
is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and
observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. {9.4.1, Box 9.2, Figure 9.8}
I am not saying climate models are bad… there are just too many uncertainties involved in any projection of a 100 years in the future.
Even a prediction ten years in advance is challenging.
This of course does not mean that we don’t do anything about safeguarding the environment or reducing pollution.
Vogue wasn’t a religious magazine when I was working.
1 Like
Jewish Chronicle take here. Pseudononymous activist group preying upon sensitivities of socially isolated communities, it appears.
Look up the question of vaccination on orthodox Jewish webistes, and they seem to conclude one has a duty vaccinate ones children according to Torah.
In this country we have a climate-change activist group disrupting London traffic, causing extensive criminal damage, and targeting politicians of right and left, in order to get their impossible agenda for change (ie zero carbon emission by 2025 - have they considered the carbon load of junking the entire vehicle fleet of the world in five years and building a new one, with a few billlion lithium batteries (making a Tesla battery generates 14 tonnes of carbon).
So I’d say, “activist groups with utopian agendas spoil everything.” After all, orthodox Jews have been quietly minding their own business for 2000 years, except when Fuehrers and Grand Muftis decide they should be tidied out of the way.
1 Like
This is classic AGW denialism on display.
In the case of global warming you claim you can’t determine who is winning the debate.
Then you may be interested in this graph:
They are able to build models with and without human factors. You will see that the two track very neatly before 1960. The models are able to accurately predict historical temperatures which is evidence that the models work. You will then notice how natural processes and human factors diverge past 1960, and how the observations match the model that includes human factors.
2 Likes
I already gave you a reference. I linked you to a page which not only told you the source (the IPCC’s report, in this case AR3), but also told you the significance of the graph (which you haven’t actually addressed).
You don’t need to tell me, I already told you. I linked you to a page telling you it was from the IPCC’s AR3 report, and more importantly telling you why this graph is significant. It seems you didn’t read the page. You still don’t understand what this graph is saying. I gave you a page which explained it and put the key words in bold, so they couldn’t be missed.
So what?
So what? We’re looking at this graph. Why are you trying to change the subject?
So what? How is this remotely relevant to the topic at hand? Why aren’t you actually addressing the point I made, or the evidence in the graph, or the graph’s significance?
Yeah I know, “I’m not saying we shouldn’t anything about safeguarding the environment or reducing population, but we shouldn’t do X, we shouldn’t do Y, we shouldn’t do Z, and, well I can’t think of what exactly we should do, but it shouldn’t get in the way of making corporations wealthy or making me feel vaguely uncomfortable”.
This is the same point I’ve been making with Ashwin, and he’s dodging it too.
This is labeling on display.
Nothing wrong with labeling when it’s been demonstrated to be correct.
1 Like
So what?
It shows a lack of an intellectual argument on your side.
Why do you need to attempt to shame people into your point of view?This issue appears to be far from conclusive. If you disagree please articulate a clear hypothesis that can be tested.
No, it’s atypical alarmism on display. 450 arrests so far.
But hey, if it’s as typical as you say, then you can’t judge the cause by the activists.
LOL! Thanks for my early morning chuckle Bill. You’ve dodged every last bit of science shown to you in the last several years on numerous topics like evolution and AGW yet still have the cheek to whine about a lack of intellectual argument. 
1 Like
No it doesn’t. I have already explained in great detail my rationale for using the term “AGW denialism”. I don’t use the label without justification. I provide an intellectual argument.
I don’t want to shame them into my point of view. But I do want science deniers like these to stay out of the way of people who are living in the real world, and who are actually trying to do something about the predicament we all face.
You can read my previous posts in this thread. Try this one for a start. But I already know you’re not going to pay any attention, because you’re a science denialist. You can’t avoid science denialism, because you’re YEC.
1 Like