Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.environment > #101773 > unrolled thread

Re: Another White Flag Moment

Back to article view | Back to sci.environment

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Another White Flag Moment Hound Adams <ha@inv.alid> - 2026-05-14 13:39 -0600
    Re: Another White Flag Moment "Donald J. Trump" <epstein@maga.gop> - 2026-05-16 14:43 +0000
      Re: Another White Flag Moment Hound Adams <ha@inv.alid> - 2026-05-16 16:36 -0600

#101773 — Re: Another White Flag Moment

On Thu, 14 May 2026 10:20:08 -0700
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:

> > https://wattsupwiththat.com/  
> 
> A lie site.

You LOSE again:


"When the RCP8.5 assumptions are loaded into computer models, they run
politically-convenient red hot suggestions that the temperature in 2100
will rise by about 4°C from a 1850-1900 baseline – in other words, a
rise of nearly 3°C in the next 80 years. Only the most deranged eco
loons will claim such large short-term rises out loud, so the activist
scientists quietly loaded garbage assumptions into their computers to
arrive at their garbage-out Armageddon scares."

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/neither-desirable-nor-possible

Here is a timeline that goes along with the bar chart found above in this post.

2011: The RCPs are published, RCP4.5 is identified as a baseline (i.e., 4.5 W/m2)6

2012: The IPCC AR5 first order draft is written. It says: “virtually all baseline scenarios 4 lead to radiative forcing above 5.0 W/m2 by the end of the century”

2013: The IPCC AR5 final draft is written. It says that the majority of baselines are “above 6.0”

2014: The IPCC AR5 is published and RCP8.5 is the only RCP scenario within the baseline range.

In 2023 the IPCC warned that RCP8.5 should not be used as a reference
scenario and a group of experts convened to start preparing a next
generation of scenarios have largely left RCP8.5 behind.7

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#101774

Hound Adams wrote:

>On Thu, 14 May 2026 10:20:08 -0700
>Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
>
>> > https://wattsupwiththat.com/  
>> 
>> A lie site.
>
>You LOSE again:

Trump surrendered to THE FUCKING TALIBAN!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101775

On Sat, 16 May 2026 14:43:41 -0000 (UTC)
"Donald J. Trump" <epstein@maga.gop> wrote:

> Hound Adams wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, 14 May 2026 10:20:08 -0700
> >Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
> >  
> >> > https://wattsupwiththat.com/    
> >> 
> >> A lie site.  
> >
> >You LOSE again:  
> 
> Trump surrendered to THE FUCKING TALIBAN!

No, really he did not, deceit bot.



GooGooAI:

No, Donald Trump did not formally surrender to the Taliban. 

The Doha Accord (February 2020)
Fulfilling a campaign promise to end "endless wars" and withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, the Trump administration bypassed the official Afghan government and negotiated directly with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar.  


Key Terms of the Deal:
U.S. Withdrawal: The United States agreed to a strict 14-month timeline to withdraw all U.S. and NATO military forces from Afghanistan (setting a final deadline of May 1, 2021).  


Taliban Guarantees: In exchange, the Taliban promised not to allow al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups to use Afghan soil to threaten the security of the U.S. or its allies, and they agreed to stop attacking U.S. and coalition forces.  

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.environment

csiph-web