07 May 17
Originally posted by wildgrass
Yes.... and.... the links I've followed don't actually say what they claim to say. I don't understand when there's a site claiming that all of climate models are wrong, but the actual data presented on that website seems to support the accuracy of the models. Isn't it ludicrous say that the models are wrong, using the data as "proof", and the data is wrong ...[text shortened]... ee a legitimate scientific argument that anthropogenic climate is not significant or actionable.
Isn't it ludicrous [to] say that the models are wrong, using the data as "proof", and the data is wrong, while using the models as proof?Circular denial of the antecedent, nice.
12 May 17
Originally posted by wildgrassNobody has claimed that "ALL" climate models are wrong. You are still lying!
Yes.... and.... the links I've followed don't actually say what they claim to say. I don't understand when there's a site claiming that all of climate models are wrong, but the actual data presented on that website seems to support the accuracy of the models. Isn't it ludicrous say that the models are wrong, using the data as "proof", and the data is wrong ...[text shortened]... ee a legitimate scientific argument that anthropogenic climate is not significant or actionable.
13 May 17
Originally posted by wildgrassI'm saying climate models could match up by accident, but they are unlikely to be right a second time using the same input. Climate models are nothing more than a guessing game right now. They are still overestimating how much co2 warms the planet. That is why they cannot predict the future accurately.
You just said that "nobody has claimed that ALL climate models are wrong". As in, not all the clocks are broken?
Originally posted by Metal Braineverything you said there is false.
I'm saying climate models could match up by accident, but they are unlikely to be right a second time using the same input. Climate models are nothing more than a guessing game right now. They are still overestimating how much co2 warms the planet. That is why they cannot predict the future accurately.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
14 May 17
1 edit
If climate models agreed with a certain set of measurements and showed a distinct level of disagreement with another(equally valid) set, but the empirical set that agreed was chosen for the comparison of model accuracy; would you not as an imprartial "scientist" cry foul immediately? Why did it take a whistleblower for this type of bias to be revaled in NOAA scientific methodolgy.? While the scientific method may strive for impartiality, the "appliers" of the method or "scientist" are inherently partial to the predictions that allow them to earn a living. The instinct of self preservation is troublesome to pure science.
14 May 17
4 edits
Originally posted by joe shmoWithout a single exception, ever since man made CO2 levels have become significant, none of the measurements of global temperatures to date have ever in total disagreement with there being man made global warming; and all the recent ones are in total agreement. It is only the climate change deniers that are using a political agenda to distort the truth. There is no reason to disbelieve that the vast majority of the climate scientist that collect and use those measurements have fabricated data or cherry-picked data to fit a model; on the contrary, it has notably been the climate change deniers that have cherry-picked data to fit their own 'model', if you can call such an unscientific load of nonsense beliefs with an obvious political agenda a 'model'. ( 'nonsense beliefs' like vast mass global conspiracies that includes the vast majority of scientists to deliberately lie about climate; Totally absurd! )
If climate models agreed with a certain set of measurements and showed a distinct level of disagreement with another(equally valid) set, but the empirical set that agreed was chosen for the comparison of model accuracy; would you not as an imprartial "scientist" cry foul immediately? Why did it take a whistleblower for this type of bias to be revaled in NO ...[text shortened]... allow them to earn a living. The instinct of self preservation is troublesome to pure science.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
15 May 17
Originally posted by humy"It is only the climate change deniers that are using a political agenda to distort the truth"
Without a single exception, ever since man made CO2 levels have become significant, none of the measurements of global temperatures to date have ever in total disagreement with there being man made global warming; and all the recent ones are in total agreement. It is only the climate change deniers that are using a political agenda to distort the truth. There i ...[text shortened]... at includes the vast majority of scientists to deliberately lie about climate; Totally absurd! )
I don't believe thats true, its a highly politicized scientific field. We are being fed crap from both ends. The FACT that NOAA "scientists" knowingly ignored cooler (equally valid) data sets should give anyone with half a brain some pause!
15 May 17
3 edits
Originally posted by joe shmothis was for the so-called "flawed" study that was meant to disprove the "hiatus" in global warming; guess what! We have conformation that the "hiatus" in global warming HAS been disproved! It was shown to be based on flawed data. There never was any such "hiatus". And there was absolutely NO evidence of a deliberate political cover up by any scientists involved. Mean while; the climate change deniers continue with their political agenda by pretending the "hiatus" was real long after it was scientifically disproved.
The FACT that NOAA "scientists" knowingly ignored cooler (equally valid) data sets should give anyone with half a brain some pause!
15 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by joe shmoOf course it should give people pause. Scientists have been trying to wrestle with conflicting datasets forever. In this case, it gave pause to the entire field for years. But when you examine the big picture here, your example clearly doesn't invalidate the underlying science. There are lots of datasets and tomes of empirical information that are independent of the specific problem you're referring to, and all support the concept of CO2-induced climate change. Anyone with half a brain should understand this too.
"It is only the climate change deniers that are using a political agenda to distort the truth"
I don't believe thats true, its a highly politicized scientific field. We are being fed crap from both ends. The FACT that NOAA "scientists" knowingly ignored cooler (equally valid) data sets should give anyone with half a brain some pause!
15 May 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainOn this topic, an outstanding layman's article published in the conservative magazine National Review [1]. It's almost like he used Metal Brain's brain as a case study:
I'm saying climate models could match up by accident, but they are unlikely to be right a second time using the same input. Climate models are nothing more than a guessing game right now. They are still overestimating how much co2 warms the planet. That is why they cannot predict the future accurately.
How do we recognize science denial? ... reliance on fake experts, using logical fallacies to arrive at false conclusions, demanding impossible expectations of scientific proof, cherry picking from the full body of evidence and conspiracy theories to explain the consensus.
[1]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447616/climate-change-science-denial-oren-cass-whos-denier-now-essay-response
16 May 17
Originally posted by wildgrassYou are avoiding a debate by digressing.
On this topic, an outstanding layman's article published in the conservative magazine National Review [1]. It's almost like he used Metal Brain's brain as a case study:
[quote]How do we recognize science denial? ... reliance on fake experts, using logical fallacies to arrive at false conclusions, demanding impossible expectations of scientific pr ...[text shortened]... review.com/article/447616/climate-change-science-denial-oren-cass-whos-denier-now-essay-response
Most climate scientists do NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming. This is a fact, not a theory. The science is not favorable to your biased non science opinion.
Sea levels show a consistent rise that is expected from a warming trend that started over 300 years ago. There is no alarming sea level rise and that is because there is no real temperature rise causing it. All perceived alarming temp rises are from land based "heat islands" we know to be artificially high. This is why cherry picked data is always used by lying alarmists and sources are always omitted. Alarmists can't prove anything with the truth, hence the constant lies!