With so many failed predictions why should I believe it's a good theory?

Labeling someone a troll because they don't agree with you, how typical. Of course you'll deny that and claim that it's because you think it's obvious that I'm not interested in discussing this in good faith and have already made up my mind and other bullshit such as this that you use to justify your hateful nature.

You've made a lot of comments so let me just understand where you stand first. Are you denying that scientists have made false predictions related to man-made global warming? Do you deny that the three predictions I've claimed are false are not false predictions?

Here are the three predictions that I believe have been proven to be false:

Al Gore, who won the Nobel Peace prize in 2007 along with the IPC and is one of the most outspoken advocates for your cause said in 2008, "Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years." http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/

Gore was simply echoing the latest modelling studies at the time. The BBC claimed in 2007, "Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years." The article then quotes Professor Wieslaw Maslowski as saying, "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author said in 1990: "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." reference: "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990

From Time.com on hurricanes, "In the 2007 report, the IPCC said that it was more likely than not — a greater than 50% certainty in the panel’s terminology — that human activity was contributing to an observed intensification of hurricane activity in some parts of the world. Now the IPCC — or at least the draft — says it has “low confidence” of that relationship, which means it believes that there is only a 2-out-of-10 chance of being correct. The estimated probability that the 21st century will see more intense hurricane activity has fallen as well."

"Then there’s another new study that predicts that changing atmospheric conditions created by climate change could actually make storms like Sandy — which struck the East Coast of the U.S., with disastrous consequences — less likely in the decades to come."


In 2007 the IPCC claimed that global warming would likely cause more hurricanes. Six years later they claim that it will likely cause less hurricanes. That's a major shift that suggests their theory isn't good at making predictions.

/r/climate Thread Parent