14 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassAnd another thing is the explosive growth of methane due to a heating climate. That could well be the tipping point since it has been proven to be 20 X more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. That includes methane hydrates in the deep ocean that can release millions of tons of CH4 into the atmosphere all by itself, not even taking into consideration the massive amount of methane in arctic tundra. CH4 is the sleeping elephant in the room, you release THAT and we WILL be in deep doo doo.
Metal Brain You are being played like a fiddle. HuffPo and Breitbart don't do science. They aren't even journalists. They only blog about what they think people will click on.
Throughout this thread I have urged you to actually look at and understand the scientific data in the figures before you post it. Dr. Spencer's "study" has probably been shared t ...[text shortened]... a slight warming bias. This is a far cry from the crazy rhetoric being spewed from online blogs.
16 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassI asked you to post the link and you didn't. Your evasiveness is predictable of a liar. Digressing into a bunch of opinionated nonsense shows how weak your position is. I'll consider that an admission of defeat. Don't forget what has happened here. You have failed.
Metal Brain You are being played like a fiddle. HuffPo and Breitbart don't do science. They aren't even journalists. They only blog about what they think people will click on.
Throughout this thread I have urged you to actually look at and understand the scientific data in the figures before you post it. Dr. Spencer's "study" has probably been shared t ...[text shortened]... a slight warming bias. This is a far cry from the crazy rhetoric being spewed from online blogs.
16 Oct 17
Originally posted by @metal-brain[browser opens]
I asked you to post the link and you didn't. Your evasiveness is predictable of a liar. Digressing into a bunch of opinionated nonsense shows how weak your position is. I'll consider that an admission of defeat. Don't forget what has happened here. You have failed.
You: See, look at all this evidence that climate models are wrong. [post links]
Me: What evidence?
You: What evidence?
[slapstick routine ends. thread closed]
16 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassYou lied. Stop trying to digress away from it. You failed to post the link because you don't want to expose yourself as a liar. It was not on the daily caller link as you claimed. Admit that you lied.
[browser opens]
You: See, look at all this evidence that climate models are wrong. [post links]
Me: What evidence?
You: What evidence?
[slapstick routine ends. thread closed]
Originally posted by @metal-brainIt's a digression? Come on, it's central to everything we've been talking about. You have some article that says something in the title that the data doesn't support, then when you read that even the authors of the article can only spin the data into a "slight warming" bias suddenly you can't find your own data?
You lied. Stop trying to digress away from it. You failed to post the link because you don't want to expose yourself as a liar. It was not on the daily caller link as you claimed. Admit that you lied.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassSo now you lie and claim I can't find data? This is about your source of information and how you refuse to reveal it. You claimed the Daily Caller link I posted contained a margin of error criteria that it does not. I called you out on this multiple times only for you to change the subject by digressing away from that fact.
It's a digression? Come on, it's central to everything we've been talking about. You have some article that says something in the title that the data doesn't support, then when you read that even the authors of the article can only spin the data into a "slight warming" bias suddenly you can't find your own data?
Show me your source of information that you are trying so hard to evade because you lied and don't want to admit it. Why so cowardly? Don't you want to admit you lied? The Daily Caller link I posted does not contain that info as you claimed. Since you keep evading posting your source of info I am inclined to think you don't have a source of info at all and you just made it up.
Is that it? Did you just make it up because you had no facts to show? This isn't helping you. People usually lie out of weakness. Admit you are wrong and lied.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainYou. Can't. Find. Data. This is not a lie, it's fact. You apparently resurrected this thread for no reason at all, we're just having the exact same conversation we already had months ago.
So now you lie and claim I can't find data? This is about your source of information and how you refuse to reveal it. You claimed the Daily Caller link I posted contained a margin of error criteria that it does not. I called you out on this multiple times only for you to change the subject by digressing away from that fact.
Show me your source of inf ...[text shortened]... show? This isn't helping you. People usually lie out of weakness. Admit you are wrong and lied.
You can't make broad sweeping conclusions about the inaccuracy of climate models when the data shows the models are quite accurate.
You can't make claims about the lack of a climate consensus when two polls of thousands of scientists clearly show the opposite.
20 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrass"You can't make broad sweeping conclusions about the inaccuracy of climate models when the data shows the models are quite accurate. "
You. Can't. Find. Data. This is not a lie, it's fact. You apparently resurrected this thread for no reason at all, we're just having the exact same conversation we already had months ago.
You can't make broad sweeping conclusions about the inaccuracy of climate models when the data shows the models are quite accurate.
You can't make claims about the ...[text shortened]... lack of a climate consensus when two polls of thousands of scientists clearly show the opposite.
You can't determine something is accurate until you define what accurate is. That is why I have repeatedly asked you for your source of information. You falsely claimed scientists determined that on the Daily caller link I posted long ago. That is a lie!
For the fifth time, what is your source of information? If you do not provide your source of information it will be obvious to all that you made it up because the truth cannot help you.
This is about honesty. I have been honest and you have not. Admit it!
Edit: Here is the link I posted long ago. Note that it does not contain any margin of error assertions as wildgrass falsely claimed. He thinks we are stupid.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainWhat is the bottom line of this? Are you saying just let the weather do its best and deal with the aftermath, forget trying to mitigate climate change bad effects?
"You can't make broad sweeping conclusions about the inaccuracy of climate models when the data shows the models are quite accurate. "
You can't determine something is accurate until you define what accurate is. That is why I have repeatedly asked you for your source of information. You falsely claimed scientists determined that on the Daily caller l ...[text shortened]... /dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainIf I'm wrong and dishonest, can someone else confirm that his Daily Caller hit piece does not contain a link to the original scientific article (containing normalized data with statistics) in the 2nd paragraph? Can someone confirm that this is not a working paper by the politically partisan Cato Institute? Can someone confirm that they do not conclude a "slight warming bias in the models".?
"You can't make broad sweeping conclusions about the inaccuracy of climate models when the data shows the models are quite accurate. "
You can't determine something is accurate until you define what accurate is. That is why I have repeatedly asked you for your source of information. You falsely claimed scientists determined that on the Daily caller l ...[text shortened]... /dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/
If these things can be confirmed, then I'll admit I was wrong.
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseBad effects? What bad effects?
What is the bottom line of this? Are you saying just let the weather do its best and deal with the aftermath, forget trying to mitigate climate change bad effects?
I know you perceive bad effects due to media hype, but every link you point to is making a mountain out of a mole hill. You have to prove something correct before being judged right for being alarmed. Natural warming and anthropogenic warming are different. It is not enough to show warming that has been going on since the little ice age.
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassThere you go again.
If I'm wrong and dishonest, can someone else confirm that his Daily Caller hit piece does [b]not contain a link to the original scientific article (containing normalized data with statistics) in the 2nd paragraph? Can someone confirm that this is not a working paper by the politically partisan Cato Institute? Can someone confirm that they do [b ...[text shortened]... warming bias in the models".?
If these things can be confirmed, then I'll admit I was wrong.[/b]
This is about your failing to provide your source of information to back up your claim of an "acceptable margin of error". I'm not going to just take your word for it.
Provide your source of information. Failure to do so for the sixth time is an admission you don't have a source to prove your false claim. Nobody here will accept another failure to show proof as anything but an admission of dishonesty. I think your evasiveness has already turned them off to you. They know I'm right. Your underhanded tactics make that transparent.
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainYou are right because a blogger told you so? What about the science?
There you go again.
This is about your failing to provide your source of information to back up your claim of an "acceptable margin of error". I'm not going to just take your word for it.
Provide your source of information. Failure to do so for the sixth time is an admission you don't have a source to prove your false claim. Nobody here will acce ...[text shortened]... ady turned them off to you. They know I'm right. Your underhanded tactics make that transparent.
Originally posted by @wildgrassOh who cares about science and the facts?
You are right because a blogger told you so? What about the science?
Just bury your stupid delusional ostrich head in the sand and wait for reality to kick you up your stupid feathery ostrich arse with all feathers flying everywhere.
24 Oct 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainEvidence, please.
"You can't make broad sweeping conclusions about the inaccuracy of climate models when the data shows the models are quite accurate. "
You can't determine something is accurate until you define what accurate is. That is why I have repeatedly asked you for your source of information. You falsely claimed scientists determined that on the Daily caller l ...[text shortened]... /dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/
Given that Cato Institute has been built and provisioned by the Koch brothers, by ExxonMobil, by Peabody coal and by other fossil fuel interests, while amongst else is called out for blocking action on climate change and playing ball with tobacco industry, I see no reason why one would ever take the working papers of this organization seriously.
However, if the mentioned working paper by Michaels and Knappenberger is peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal, I would like to have the link and read it😵