Originally posted by Eladar
The models predicted warmer temps than what we have. It is simple as that.

As for his orher stuff, I do not care. False predictions are false predictions. If you actually have questions for him, contact him.

I agree that it's simple but the graph in your link does not make the point you think it makes. It's not a false prediction by any reasonable measure.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Most future predictions have been proven wrong.

You have not shown that.

Originally posted by wildgrass
You have not shown that.

Are you claiming the 73 UN climate models were right?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Are you claiming the 73 UN climate models were right?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17

This is literally the first sentence in this article:

"Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years"

Do you agree with that sentence? Even the graph embedded in the article contradicts it.

Originally posted by wildgrass
This is literally the first sentence in this article:

"Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years"

Do you agree with that sentence? Even the graph embedded in the article contradicts it.

I guess that would depend on your definition of statistically significant. If you have an issue with this guy's use of terms contact him.

My point is the computer models which were used to hype global warming for political purposes.

What is my evidence? Al Gore and his inconvenient truth as well as carbon taxes that increase the cost of energy to the detriment of both businesses and individuals.

Originally posted by Eladar
I guess that would depend on your definition of statistically significant.

Nope; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
"statistical significance" isn't some loose layperson term but has an objective scientific definition.

...My point is computer models which were used to hype global warming for political purposes.

What is my evidence? Al Gore ...

Is Al Gore a scientist? -answer, NO.
Is he a computer programmer? -answer, probably not.
-but either way; did he create those computer models? -answer, certainly not; only the SCIENTISTS did.
Did he run the simulations using those computer models to get the scientific results? -answer, NO.
So in what sense did he "use" the computer models? answer; He didn't, at least not directly. He may have used some scientific results outputted by a computer model and, yes, just possibly used them for a 'political' purpose; so what? does that mean the computer models are wrong? -answer, NO. -If someone says the Earth is round for 'political' purposes, does that indicate the Earth is flat? -answer, NO.
-thus your 'point' is at best completely mute and at worst badly flawed.

And what about the scientific results that show global warming that didn't partly come from computer models but came from JUST measurements i.e. ONLY the collection of data? Is science wrong about that as well? How so?

Originally posted by Eladar
My point is the computer models which were used to hype global warming for political purposes.

Fact: regardless of computer models, the earth is warming, and measurably so. That warming is already affecting weather globally and has been having a very significant effect globally causing droughts, floods and more. We know that that warming is primarily caused by green house gasses. Whether or not Al Gore said something about ice on Kilaminjaro that turned out not to be true doesn't change that one bit.
The real question is why you are so desperate to make out that it does. What is your real motivation? Are you just stubborn, or do you think there is a cost to you admitting the truth?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Fact: regardless of computer models, the earth is warming, and measurably so. That warming is already affecting weather globally and has been having a very significant effect globally causing droughts, floods and more. We know that that warming is primarily caused by green house gasses. Whether or not Al Gore said something about ice on Kilaminjaro that t ...[text shortened]... l motivation? Are you just stubborn, or do you think there is a cost to you admitting the truth?

The earth has been warming for over 300 years. This is not new news at all.

"We know that that warming is primarily caused by green house gasses"

Nope. That is a myth! No evidence exists to show that. See my anthropogenic GW myth thread.

Originally posted by humy
Nope; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
"statistical significance" isn't some loose layperson term but has an objective scientific definition.

...My point is computer models which were used to hype global warming for political purposes.

What is my evidence? Al Gore ...

Is Al Gore a scientist? -answer, NO.
Is ...[text shortened]... JUST measurements i.e. ONLY the collection of data? Is science wrong about that as well? How so?

You don't need a science degree to operate climate models. No degree is needed at all. I know you tend to not believe that, but it is true.

Originally posted by wildgrass
This is literally the first sentence in this article:

"Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years"

Do you agree with that sentence? Even the graph embedded in the article contradicts it.

Nope.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

Sonhouse created a thread on this forum about this. Go back and look at it.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You don't need a science degree to operate climate models. No degree is needed at all.

you moronically as usual don't even bother to read the posts before responding; Eladar said specifically "computer models", and not "climate models". Those particular computer models were for climate models and Al Gore did NOT make them nor run them as in run the computer programs for them because he isn't a computer scientist (and probably not even merely a computer programmer) nor a climate scientist nor any other kind of scientist, moron. So everything I implied there is obviously correct.

Also, the scientific results that showed the global warming so far which has happened, at least in the main and often totally, didn't come from computer models nor even climate models but came from just measurements i.e. only the collection of data. Can't argue with verifiable data! And natural causes cannot explain the full extent of that observed warming thus man made global warming is a scientific fact.

Originally posted by humy
you moronically as usual don't even bother to read the posts before responding; Eladar said specifically "computer models", and not "climate models". Those particular computer models were for climate models and Al Gore did NOT make them nor run them as in run the computer programs for them because he isn't a computer scientist (and probably not even merely a c ...[text shortened]... lain the full extent of that observed warming thus man made global warming is a scientific fact.

You really are a moron. Either that or so blinded by your faith in global warming that you appear to be a moron.

Originally posted by Eladar
Either that or so blinded by your faith in global warming that .

I have no "faith" in global warming; no faith required to believe a scientific fact. All resent measurements on global temperature prove the global climate has been getting warmer; you have to be totally delusional to disbelieve this. Do you deny any such measurements were made?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Nope.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

Sonhouse created a thread on this forum about this. Go back and look at it.

If you don't agree with the first sentence of an article you are posting, then why do you post it?

Originally posted by humy
you moronically as usual don't even bother to read the posts before responding; Eladar said specifically "computer models", and not "climate models". Those particular computer models were for climate models and Al Gore did NOT make them nor run them as in run the computer programs for them because he isn't a computer scientist (and probably not even merely a c ...[text shortened]... lain the full extent of that observed warming thus man made global warming is a scientific fact.

You are the moron.

Climate models are computer models. The fact that you don't know they are the same thing says a lot about you. I don't think you are a scientist at all. No scientist would be as stupid as you.