Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Megalodon]

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, at work again.

Again, ineffective.

Hi mhaze... since you seem to be the only one familiar with this chap's writings, tell me one thing:

Did Alinsky figure out how an increase in the values of ak-index could cause a global temperature increase 10 years earlier? Since we're at it, have you?

 

[BenBurch]

Hi mhaze... since you seem to be the only one familiar with this chap's writings, tell me one thing:

Did Alinsky figure out how an increase in the values of ak-index could cause a global temperature increase 10 years earlier? Since we're at it, have you?

I went to look him up, and only far-right-wing mouthpieces mention him.

I suspect that its rather like the "protocols of the elders of zion" in that the source is fictional, and the document is a straw man used to attack its supposed adherents, or if not, the document is insignificant, and not ever read by its supposed adherents, again a straw man and a lie.

 

[dblue]

Poptech isn't interested in offering anything constructive, he/she just wants to tear down accepted climate change science because he/she doesn't like its conclusions. It's like how creationists offer nothing scientific in place of evolution, they just harp on how wrong/bad/evil evolutionary science is.

That is also why PT is doing everything they can to avoid directly addressing questions such as yours, mine, and Wowbag's, and when we keep on pressing him/her for straightforward answers PT starts going off about how we don't understand, we're lying, or (my favorite so far) how their posts are "being censored".

Presumably from the economic derail in the thread, this is likely due to his/her ideological position regarding free markets.

Combine all this together and it's the classic mark of a pseudoscientist.

As I was reading through this thread this is the conclusion I was coming to as well. Well put.

 

[Poptech]

That would be such a scandal, if that were true! A breakdown of the scientific method, the likes of which we have not seen, in hundreds of years!!

The computer climate models have not been validated as I stated.

Ultimately, it is market driven, though.

No it is not. Government arbitrarily determines the supply of, and arbitrarily creates the demand for the central commodity to be traded (permits to emit CO2). That has nothing to do with market forces. Stating the lie that it has anything to do with free markets is propaganda.

Cap & Trade Is Not A Market Solution (Robert P. Murphy, Ph.D. Economics)

But, you are not making a case that the government is taking over control.

You don't understand, Government can effectively put any business they want out of business by restricting their access to permits or give free allowances to competing businesses! They will have FULL control.

It is hardly a "stealth" plan, since everyone knows what is going on.

It is a stealth energy tax because consumers will simply see much higher costs for goods and services (based on energy use) and incorrectly blame the business.

And, it is hardly a "tax" in the same way that buying government bonds is not a tax.

Buying government bonds is not mandatory for businesses to operate. Government legislation that increases the cost to do business is a tax.

Tell us why it is a bad idea for the government to generate revenue in innovative ways.

The government does not need more revenue, it needs to drastically reduce spending. All increases in government spending are bad, because it robs capital from the private sector either through taxes or inflation and ultimately hurts the economy. Economics 101.

 

[Poptech]

Poptech isn't interested in offering anything constructive, he/she just wants to tear down accepted climate change science because he/she doesn't like its conclusions. It's like how creationists offer nothing scientific in place of evolution, they just harp on how wrong/bad/evil evolutionary science is.

I have offered extensive scientific evidence to support my positions. And yes I have a problem with scientific conclusions based on virtual reality. But again we go back the pathetic JREF attempt to smear. I have stated repeatedly that I support evolution theory as I have seen empirical evidence to support it's conclusions.

That is also why PT is doing everything they can to avoid directly addressing questions such as yours, mine, and Wowbag's, and when we keep on pressing him/her for straightforward answers PT starts going off about how we don't understand, we're lying, or (my favorite so far) how their posts are "being censored".

I have answered your questions Matt. The problem is I will not lie like you keep doing by trying to pretend to know what I stated. You are dishonest and a liar. You are unable to provide evidence for your lies yet you keep repeating them! So yes Matt you are lying as I NEVER stated ANYTHING about comparing experimental accuracy between the real and virtual worlds. I fully explained REPEATEDLY your confusion as I was talking about the "laboratory" accuracy between the real and virtual worlds. After you lost this point you obsessively just continue to lie about it. Time to grow up.

 

[Wowbagger]

PT: I will leave the discusion of Cap & Trade to folks who are better able to describe it to you, than I.

The pros and cons of Cap & Trade are separate from the issues of computer model accuracy.

I will continue discussing computer model accuracy with you, because that fits my area of expertise better.

The computer climate models have not been validated as I stated.

They have been validated in every way that is important to scientific models.

And, I might add, they are still not even the sole deciding factors in climate policy. As you rightfully pointed out: Only alarmists and zealots would focus solely on them.

So what is the problem?!

 

[Wowbagger]

This other thread seems to describe the power of computer models, fairly well: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148349

Granted, it's about cars. Not climate. But, I'm sure most folks are simply not aware of how far these computers have come!

 

[MattusMaximus]

A question, PT: is every single car sold on the market crash tested for safety?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I have offered extensive scientific evidence to support my positions. And yes I have a problem with scientific conclusions based on virtual reality. But again we go back the pathetic JREF attempt to smear. I have stated repeatedly that I support evolution theory as I have seen empirical evidence to support it's conclusions.

I'm not calling you a creationist, PT. I'm simply saying that you employ the same methods of argumentation as creationists, and the fact that you cannot distinguish the two things speaks volumes about you.

I have answered your questions Matt. The problem is I will not lie like you keep doing by trying to pretend to know what I stated. You are dishonest and a liar. You are unable to provide evidence for your lies yet you keep repeating them! So yes Matt you are lying as I NEVER stated ANYTHING about comparing experimental accuracy between the real and virtual worlds. I fully explained REPEATEDLY your confusion as I was talking about the "laboratory" accuracy between the real and virtual worlds. After you lost this point you obsessively just continue to lie about it. Time to grow up.

Do you really think you're convincing anyone with this drivel? Yawn.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I went to look him up, and only far-right-wing mouthpieces mention him.

I suspect that its rather like the "protocols of the elders of zion" in that the source is fictional, and the document is a straw man used to attack its supposed adherents, or if not, the document is insignificant, and not ever read by its supposed adherents, again a straw man and a lie.

It's an actual book which most people referring to had probably never heard of until President Obama was a viable contender for the Democratic nomination. It then became a talking point for wingnut reactionaries trying to tar anyone who disagreed with them with the taint of 60s radicalism. See also "The Left"_TM

 

[BenBurch]

It's an actual book which most people referring to had probably never heard of until President Obama was a viable contender for the Democratic nomination. It then became a talking point for wingnut reactionaries trying to tar anyone who disagreed with them with the taint of 60s radicalism. See also "The Left"_TM

Ah, the latter case I suggested, then.

 

[mhaze]

....I will continue discussing computer model accuracy with you, because that fits my area of expertise better.

They have been validated in every way that is important to scientific models.....So what is the problem?!

That you seem to not know the meaning of the term validate, yet you glibly assure us of it having been done?

 

[mhaze]

Crash tests are simulations. Unless you want to volunteer to replace the dummy?

Please state the number of degrees of freedom in these empirical tests.

Then state the number of degrees of freedom in climate models.

Then pick 1 or 2:

1. I erred, car tests are not similar
2. Continue with Alinsky's suggestion to use argument by ridicule

It's an actual book which most people referring to had probably never heard of until President Obama was a viable contender for the Democratic nomination. It then became a talking point for wingnut reactionaries trying to tar anyone who disagreed with them with the taint of 60s radicalism. See also "The Left"_TM

The "12 rules for radicals" is a set of tactics to use in place of rational argument with logical premises, assertions and conclusions.

It describes well the methods of radical Warmers who Must Save the Planet. I could as well simply note an argument from ridicule was a false argument. But Warmers as evidenced on these forums use a variety of false arguments,all of which are described in the "12 rules".

Your reeking, tatterred shoe fits.

Wear it proudly.

 

[Wowbagger]

That you seem to not know the meaning of the term validate, yet you glibly assure us of it having been done?

I might not be familiar with how climate-change-deniers use the term, but I do know how to use the term in the context of science.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how your usage differs and improves over the scientific usage?

 

[mhaze]

I might not be familiar with how climate-change-deniers use the term, but I do know how to use the term in the context of science.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how your usage differs and improves over the scientific usage?

Sure. Let's consider how climate-change-deniers use the term "validate", in other words, let's consider the use of "Validate" in reference to computer simulation and modeling.

Any other clarifications you need to reach enlightment, grasshopper?

 

[Wowbagger]

Sure. Let's consider how climate-change-deniers use the term "validate", in other words, let's consider the use of "Validate" in reference to computer simulation and modeling.

Any other clarifications you need to reach enlightment, grasshopper?

Yes. The term "validate" in computer simulation and modeling is the same that that used in general science: Back-checking with the real world data; predicting future trends, (and adjusting as the future deviates from initial predictions); demonstrating consistency with other well-established theories, models, and other lines of investigation; working with well-understood variables and risk assessment; etc.

In addition, there is often multiple platform implementation which helps remove errors caused by differences in CPU mathematics, etc.

Did I miss anything important, that you believe the computer model builders would miss?

 

[Poptech]

PT: I will leave the discusion of Cap & Trade to folks who are better able to describe it to you, than I.

I understand fully how Cap & Trade works, what you need is someone to describe to you what free market economics is. It has nothing to do with Government fiat.

They have been validated in every way that is important to scientific models.

No they have not.

And, I might add, they are still not even the sole deciding factors in climate policy. As you rightfully pointed out: Only alarmists and zealots would focus solely on them.

They are the sole deciding factor for determining the human contribution to climate change.

A question, PT: is every single car sold on the market crash tested for safety?

A question, Matt, is every single one of your questions a strawman?

I'm not calling you a creationist, PT. I'm simply saying that you employ the same methods of argumentation as creationists, and the fact that you cannot distinguish the two things speaks volumes about you.

Oh it is implies and this is common JREF smear tactic. What speaks volumes is that you even attempt to do it.

Do you really think you're convincing anyone with this drivel? Yawn.

The real question is do you really think you are convincing anyone with your lies?

 

[Poptech]

(and adjusting as the future deviates from initial predictions)

I rest my case.

 

[Wowbagger]

No they have not.

Show me a computer model, being used to build policy, that lacks validation.

Name the specific model, who is applying it to policy, and what important validation it lacks.

Name more than one, if you can. There should be dozens to choose from, if what you are saying is true.

They are the sole deciding factor for determining the human contribution to climate change.

What important policy-setting body is only using computer models as the sole deciding factor for determining human contribution to climate change?

(We already saw that the IPCC is not an example.)

I rest my case.

I should mention that it is the model that gets adjusted. Not the data.

It's those model adjustments that help us understand new factors that affect climate (and wheather) better. Computer models can help us do that much more effectively than non-computer models.

Non-computer models, including theories devised solely through empirical means are ALSO adjusted, when their future predictions deviate from the actual data.

So, your case is hardly rested, if you are making one against computer simulations. Non-computer ones have these issues.

 

[Poptech]

Show me a computer model, being used to build policy, that lacks validation.

All of the computer climate models.

What important policy-setting body is only using computer models as the sole deciding factor for determining human contribution to climate change?

(We already saw that the IPCC is not an example.)

No the IPCC is an example. All of their conclusions of AGW require computer climate models. If you think this is not the case empirically prove AGW without using computer climate models.

I should mention that it is the model that gets adjusted. Not the data.

LMAO! It must be nice to just keep adjusting your model as it fails over and over and over and then declare victory after each adjustment! This has to be the biggest scam in the history of science.