On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 9:14:43 PM UTC, Jim wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 10:52:12 -0800 (PST)
wrote:

On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 12:22:35 PM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 11:47, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 11:27:56 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 10:58, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 10:09:35 AM UTC, Norman Lynagh
wrote:

This is quite an alarming animation. It seems to me that the
chances of limiting global warming to 1.5 deg are long since
gone. A warming well in excess of 2 deg seems much more
likely.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1213272332464082944

Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire

Agree. Not if you go by Roy Spencer, however:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/...-observations/

There's always one, but you never know, the lone voices (and
Trump) may be right...

Spencer has cleverly chosen to compare real-life data with model
predictions, and in doing so was 'on a winner' as the models have
consistently failed to predict anything that's actually turned
up in reality.

The real-life data clearly shows the current 20-year plateau in
the temperature 'anomaly' that the models dare not reflect as it
could mean a threat to their creators' funding, publications,
travel to conferences, etc, as has happened all too often for
those whose research results are 'off message'.

Spencer mentions the possibility that the models incorporate too
much positive feedback, but this is a necessary part of the
current reliance of CO2 as a driver for the claimed planetary
warming.

'claimed' and a reliance on one person's perspective, as opposed
to almost every other single person working in climate science.

Presumably, this is science that you don't want to unite behind.

Says it all really 'spike'.

"It" being your argumentum ad populum, you mean.


--
Spike

To you 'Spike' and to Spencer, that would be exactly right. You two
know what's happening, don't you? The rest of science, with
overwhelming evidence, which you could research if you wished to, is
wrong.

You haven't presented any evidence! All you've done is ranted "my team
is bigger than your team", with nothing at all to back it up.

As it will always be for you. *))

Why not present some of this "overwhelming evidence" to counter Burt's
point above?

Jim. There's so much. Start with the IPCC, move on to NASA, UEA, The Tyndall Centre etc. and then to almost every other nations' national scientific associations' comments and publications. I've presented lots on here before, but I'm just not prepared to for an anonymous denier any more. Those people's views are finished, but the same, very few, dinosaurs that were the same dinosaurs 10 years ago still chirp. No-one's listening. The scientific world moved on, past them, years ago now. Why I seldom comment these days. Others, far better placed, already have.

Time for actions, not denials.