First, nobody “predicted” anything.
Dallas Dunlap

First, nobody “predicted” anything. Models make projections based on the initial conditions at the start of the model run. Model runs with CO2 levels progressing in the same way as CO2 emissions have progressed in real life project warming similar to what we’ve seen in real life.

Dallas I like you a lot on most topics but on this one you are simply brainwashed and flat refusing to accept any opposing idea except for the one you have been conditioned to believe in.

Does it not bother you that even the IPCC report recently admitted to problems with the computer models and new concerns for solar forcing or that new research has proven beyond any shadow of doubt the little ice age and the middle ages warming were global, not local events completely changing the 1,000 year trending used to claim we are in a severe warming cycle?

In this case models “assume” the data they are given, the early models “assumed” the scientific theory of the impact of Co2 as they believed it to be, they were wrong. There were 11 original models that were considered to be the best and most reliable, 10 of those predicted at least a 5 Degree increase of temperatures over a couple years if we passed their “magic number” and number 11 predicted only a 4 degree increase. These were the models used for the original IPCC reports and Al Gores famous video as well as all of the alarmist propaganda and funding requests.

The link you provided was not one of the original 11 considered the most accurate, in fact all reference to those have been scrubbed off the internet, my links all stopped working a long time ago as they started pulling them.

The urban heat island effect that you describe is well known, and raw temperature data is adjusted to factor out the urban heating effect.

That is not the point, Dallas, I know you are a smart guy so you dodging the actual point must be intentional so that means you are being dishonest on this topic, why?

The point is not their temperature records themselves but the fact deforested areas and concrete and steel and blacktop collect heat and provide warming to Earth more than if we still had the trees in place. It is like lighting a fire place,, you are saying you adjust out the average temperature from the fireplace but you ignore the fact the fire place is warming the rest of the house.

You are misinformed about the state of the science re the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the so-called Little Ice Age,

No, that would be you Dallas, again you are usually well informed and reasonable on most topics but in this case you are not telling the truth. I would say most people saying these things are just uninformed but I know that you are usually very well informed on issues so in this case you can only be saying untrue things intentionally.

There is even a study from Antarctica on Ikaite that also proves the little ice age and the Middle ages warming were both felt in Antarctica. How is it you see these kinds of hard scientific results and just ignore them Dallas? The Middle ages warming has been shown to possibly be even warmer than today, and no industry to blame it on. For the climate alarmists to make their 1.000 year warming case they need the Middle ages warming to be an isolated, local event, not a global one.

As more and more evidence piles up from tree ring studies to ice core results and these kinds of Antarctica studies it is proving that the 1.000 year record the alarmists have been depending on is simply not accurate.

Clearly the models have been wrong, even the IPCC report admits that much, so has it ever crossed your mind that they are wrong because the assumptions built into the models are wrong? Computers can only work on the information they are given. If you give them bad information they produce bad results.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Louis Weeks’s story.