Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Steve Milloy Profile picture
@JunkScience
Aug 9, 2021 • 16 tweets • 12 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
New IPCC report shows climate scientists struggling with failed predictions:

1. Catastrophic outcomes (e.g., ice sheet collapse) deemphasized.

2. But ramped up hysteria over slight (1.5C-2C) warming.

1/
apnews.com/article/europe…
Translation from climate bedwetting-ese of the key points of the new IPPC report:

1. Natural variability drives climate.

2. Never mind those wild temperature model projections.

3. Forget about catastrophic events. 2/
Failed climate predictions force IPCC to dial back hysteria in new report. For example:

1987 - James Hansen predicts global temp 3-4C higher by 2020

2020 - Global Temps only 0.44C higher.

New IPCC: ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…

Wrong Again: junkscience.com/2020/12/wrong-…
Climate hysterics can't even predict atmospheric CO2 levels (let alone the effects):

1978: CO2 levels to double by 2020

2020: CO2 level up by only 23%

Wrong Again: junkscience.com/2020/12/wrong-…

New IPCC report: ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…

4/
The new IPCC report doubles down on hysteria over exceeding its temp targets of 1.5C and 2C. ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…

But those targets are NOT science-based.

Climategate revealed they were 'plucked out of thin air.'

junkscience.com/2011/11/climat…

Just made-up hysteria. 5/
The new IPCC report backs off catastrophic climate claims because of prediction failures like at Mt. Kilimanjaro:

2008: Mt. Kilimanjaro snow to vanish by 2020

2020: Only thing melted is the prediction.

Wrong Again: junkscience.com/2020/12/wrong-…

New IPCC: ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…
Here's another classic climate alarmist blunder:

1986: EPA predicts 2 feet of sea level rise for Florida by 2020.

2020: Sea level rise + subsidence in South Florida since 1986 has been < 4 inches.

Wrong Again: junkscience.com/2020/12/wrong-…

New IPPC report: ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…
New IPCC report forced to admit nature still in charge of climate. ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…

Not surprisingly this summer's extreme weather disasters -- heatwaves, drought, floods -- have all happened before and will again! realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/…

8/
Because extreme predictions have obviously failed, the new IPCC report is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill (i.e., exceeding the 1.5C target).

But satellites show average temp is warming at a modest rate of 0.14C per decade. drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-gl…

No big deal! 9/
In 2000, @Greenpeace used an IPCC report to predict that emissions would wreck Tuvalu's economy by 2020.

Instead, Tuvala was experiencing a pre-COVID economic boom.

Wrong Again: junkscience.com/2020/12/wrong-…

New IPCC report: ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1… 10/
Who can forget 'federal scientists' predicting that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2020?

Today Arctic ice ranges 6 million square kilometers. nsidc.org/arcticseaicene…

Wrong Again: junkscience.com/2020/12/wrong-…

New IPCC report: ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1… 11/
As the IPCC melts down anew re a predicted 1.5C increase, here's what didn't melt as predicted:

2009: Glaciers at Glacier National Park gone by 2020.

2020: Gone are Park signs claiming the glaciers would be gone.

Wrong Again: junkscience.com/2020/12/wrong-…

12/
IPCC says humans have (slightly) warmed the climate.

No doubt.

But the IPCC pretends warming is all emissions vs. urban heat island, land use and temperature manipulation.

Adjusting for urban heat island effect, warming disappears, per Roy Spencer. drroyspencer.com/2021/01/could-… 13/
Despite double-talk, new IPCC report admits changes are NOT unprecedented over hundreds to thousands of years. ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…

We've always said, for example, the Medieval Optimum was as warm, if not warmer than today.

Here's a graph from the 1990 IPCC report. 14/
The new IPCC report fails to recognize slight warming & more CO2 have been great for humans & wildlife. ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…

If not: Why are there so many of us? What is the planet so green? What are we growing more food than ever?

And the weather hasn't changed. 15/
The WaPo evaluates past IPCC claims:

"The scientists were right."

Sorry. Cimate scientists have never been correct.

Check out the "Wrong Again" series:

junkscience.com/2019/09/wrong-…

junkscience.com/2020/12/wrong-…

@brady_dennis @sarahkaplan48

16/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Steve Milloy

Steve Milloy Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JunkScience

Steve Milloy Profile picture
Mar 7
America is running out of power because of the climate hoax and anti-fossil fuel policies of @BarackObama and @JoeBiden. 1/

washingtonpost.com/business/2024/…
Image
New electricity demand has more than doubled since 2017. 2/ Image
Data center demand for electricity is projected to increase 50% by the end of the decade.

10 large nuclear plants would be required to meet this demand. 3/ Image
Read 6 tweets
Steve Milloy Profile picture
Jan 7
This and all similar global temperature graphs are meaningless.

The great former MIT physics professor Walter Lewin explains why. 1/ Image
Former MIT physics professor Walter Lewin explains why NOAA temperature graphs are "meaningless." 2/
A few more points:

1. Less than 8% of NOAA temperature stations are accurate to within 1°C.

2. In 1885, for example, not much of the globe was covered by surface temperature stations.

3. Even today, much of the Earth's surface its not covered by temperature stations.

That's just some of the uncertainty omitted from NOAA's "global temperature" graph. 3/junkscience.com/2016/01/only-7…Image
Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Steve Milloy Profile picture
Oct 21, 2023
Norwegian statistics bureau throws cold water on emissions-driven global warming hysteria.

"We find that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years."


Image
More from the Norwegian statistics bureau:

All four previous interglacial periods were warmer than today, while CO2 at pre-industrial levels.

2/ ssb.no/en/natur-og-mi…
Image
More from the Norwegian statistics bureau:

- Current Greenland temperatures have not exceeded natural variability of the past 4,000 years.

- Long periods over the past 10,000 years were warmer than today.

3/ ssb.no/en/natur-og-mi…
Image
Read 8 tweets
Steve Milloy Profile picture
Oct 4, 2023
The Red Pope swings and misses at the origin of warming and emissions:

1. The current warming trend began at the bottom of the Little Ice Age in the late 1600s.

2. Recent warming began with the series of El Ninos that began in 1980.

3. We are in an El Nino year now.

4. As to emissions, warming precedes emissions. It gooses the natural carbon cycle. See Vostok ice cores and this -

5. Only 12% or so of atmospheric CO2 is manmade. 8/
Image
The Red Pope just makes it up:

1. There is no way to say that the temperature rise since the 1970s is the fastest in 2,000 years.

2. There was little if any urban heat island effect 2,000 years ago and no satellites.

3. Then there's this: "Dansgaard-Oeschger events are rapid N. Hemisphere temp jumps of up to 15°C in Greenland that repeatedly occurred w/i a few decades during the last ice age."

4. Climategate revealed that temperature targets like 1.5°C are just 'plucked out of thin air' and are not science.

5. No one knows what the global temperature in 1850 was.

6. 'Ocean acidification' is a myth. The oceans may have become slightly less basic, but that is not more acidic. Two is not more negative than three.'

7. There is no evidence of any effects from any ocean pH change.

8. Norther Hemisphere snow cover is trending up. 9/
Image
The Red Pope imagines the fake 97% 'climate consensus' is science and attacks capitalism.

1. Recent warming correlates with El Ninos, not emissions.

2. Consensus is not science. And the 97% consensus is bogus.

3. Capitalism and emissions have taken humanity from less than 1 billion to over 8 billion people. You'd think the Pope would be praising both. 10/junkscience.com/2023/01/milloy…
wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/30/97-…

Image
Read 9 tweets
Steve Milloy Profile picture
Aug 8, 2023
USA Today doesn't like my tweet from last month👇and tries to 'fact check' it.

Let's walk through USA Today fact-checker Kate Petersen's effort. 1/ https://t.co/8QbMtAiebpusatoday.com/story/news/fac…
Image
USA Today's 'fact check' is dishonest from the start.

Although the 'fact check' presents several images, the tweet being attacked is not one of them. The tweet is merely linked and quoted.

The tweet's graph, of course, is what made it 1.9 million views-compelling. 2/
Image
Image
The USA Today 'fact check' reports that the satellite data among NOAA and NASA program vary.

First, all satellite temps are processed estimates and not direct measurements. So different processing ill produce different estimates.

I like the NASA data processed by the University… https://t.co/hTW9IAPaAgtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Image
Read 5 tweets
Steve Milloy Profile picture
Jul 25, 2023
Climate deception exposed in a short thread:

@USAToday recently ran this opinion piece raving about deaths from heat waves.

Note the cite to the Lancet Planetary Health🙄 study. 1/
Image
Image
Here's a chart from the Lancet Planetary Health🙄 study.

Note how the chart is made to look as if heat deaths are as big or even a bigger problem than deaths from cold in some countries.

Can you spot the deception? Even I initially missed it. 2/ Image
Now here's the Lancet Planetary Health🙄chart (A) vs. the chart re-made by the @CO2Coalition (B) with the same death rate (X-axis) scale for cold and hot.

Look at how the Lancet chart misleads viewers by barring out cold deaths in units of 50 vs. only 10 for heat deaths...… https://t.co/7W8C8H3oFUtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(