Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jules Galen said:
No...these models have not proven to be accurate. The IPCC uses a lot of models in typical "Shotgun" approach that covers the whole range of possibilities - so something is bound to be right.

It's the old "Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy" where the rifleman shoots into the side of a barn and then paints a bullseye on whatever groupings he's made.
Click to expand...

That is just a false analogy. Did you read the link I provided to you about Hindcasting?
 
r-j said:
Very minor flaws, easy to overlook. They do not detract from the effort. We could all learn from such clear and understandable writing.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Don't play a serenade r-j. I have to admit that when you started acting the serious thinker you would have fooled me for a couple of minutes if I didn't knew you so well, as many others can check by using the search functions in this forum.

r-j said:
Also, it's seven years out of date, which is why it's more important in regards to the theory of global warming than the details he discusses. We have actually learned a lot since then. Recall that several people in this thread claimed there is no such thing as what he is discussing.
Click to expand...

That is false and you know it.

r-j said:
This was 2006, the more recent troubles were still just a whisper at that time.
Click to expand...

LOL.

You're so funny now. I wonder if you lent your user account to another person.

r-j said:
Real science has uncertainty, real science is not this mockery of science that claims it's all settled, or that the majority agrees, so it must be so. That puffery and boasting does not belong in a science discussion. It's the realm of belief, of politics, or religion.
Click to expand...

Claiming it's all settled is just some strawman of yours "r-j". "You" can't appreciate what 95% of probability is, or what a statistical hypothesis testing is, so you continue to clumsily distort the words of others into what you believe to be a valid reasoning. You're not only wrong. You're making also a fool of yourself.

It's amazing how you -I mean, the real r-j- have been proved here, once and again, month after month, to be severely wanting in high-school science and even arithmetic, what "you" try to conceal by avoiding any scientific exchange, hence the humongous lot of questions you have avoided answering, yet "you" decide now to overfly the whole subject and give a wrong piece of discourse about the state of our collective knowledge. It's like the janitor had been promoted to the Dean for the Sciences. It's like the birds shot the hunters now. I have to admit that presenting the world upside-down with a straight face can be a dialectic asset, so very well of you to have tried it -or accepted "suggestions" about trying it-.

But the summing-up of your last many posts is: a lot of adjectives, zero science -you talk about science and even try to talk about what is science, but you don't talk any science in the least- and a futile attempt to wrap it up the whole topic to blandly try to dismiss it by means of low dialectic.

[through the door] Next!!!
 
if there were no feedback loops, it would mean CS to CO2 doubling would be alot bigger than the denier like it to be.

without feedback loops and with a CS in the normal range, you are unable to explain the global warmings of the past.
 
ideogram said:
There seems to be a pattern here where doubters ask questions, are presented with links to answers, and then don't read the answers.
Click to expand...

I've probably read more about the issue than all of you put together....so I don't need to go waste my time reading some tome that you are free to summarize on this forum.

Again and again the Climate Modelers assume gross positive feedback and consistently fail. But...they insist on carrying on with the same mistake in thier little models instead of actually going out into the field and doing some real research! OMG...just imagine a Climate Scientist Modeler actually exposed to the Outdoors!
 
Jules Galen said:
I've probably read more about the issue than all of you put together....so I don't need to go waste my time reading some tome that you are free to summarize on this forum.
Click to expand...

It is completely unreasonable to expect to be taken seriously when insisting that other people do your homework for you.
 
Jules Galen said:
I've probably read more about the issue than all of you put together....so I don't need to go waste my time reading some tome that you are free to summarize on this forum.

Again and again the Climate Modelers assume gross positive feedback and consistently fail. But...they insist on carrying on with the same mistake in thier little models instead of actually going out into the field and doing some real research! OMG...just imagine a Climate Scientist Modeler actually exposed to the Outdoors!
Click to expand...

no, you have not read very much on this topic. this is evident.
especially not in the scientific literature.

will you answer the questions posed to you?

and the models have shown to be spot on about temperature.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article
 
DC said:
no, you have not read very much on this topic. this is evident.
especially not in the scientific literature.

will you answer the questions posed to you?

and the models have shown to be spot on about temperature.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article
Click to expand...

A man who can tell me what I have, and haven't done. What...are you Santa Clause, or God...or some other omniscient creature?

Now...go make us a Climate Model that works!
 
Jules Galen said:
No...AGW is not a fact. The models these scientists have never proven to be accurate and assume a lot of unjustified positive feedback of rising carbon dioxide levels. This all demonstrates that the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is appreciably warming the earth is unfounded.
Click to expand...

Yes, you wish, but if we take out of your text the ambiguous bits, its false. If we don't take out the ambiguous bits in it, it's still a concoction designed to deceive into believing the first sentence in the paragraph.

You're pretty transparent, pal.

Also, you haven't reply yet why are you so versed in "low tactics" (your words)? [refs: posts #857, 862 and 911]
 
answer the question - Jules - stop dodging/

- "Is water vapor a GHG?"

you were already shown a climate model that got a 30 year prediction correct...

answer the question
 
aleCcowaN said:
Yes, you wish, but if we take out of your text the ambiguous bits, its false. If we don't take out the ambiguous bits in it, it's still a concoction designed to deceive into believing the first sentence in the paragraph...
Click to expand...

You seem to be confused. :)
 
Jules Galen said:
A man who can tell me what I have, and haven't done. What...are you Santa Clause, or God...or some other omniscient creature?

Now...go make us a Climate Model that works!
Click to expand...

you did the same, you said you read more than the rest of us combined, so you also think you know how much we did read...... so you are also santa claus?

but most posters here that are not deniers show indeed knowledge that stems from the scientific literature. you on the other hand have not shown anything of the sort, all you showed sofar is that you get your stuff from the denier blogs. its the same old we have heard so many times and tha same we all can read on WUWT and Climatedepot etc.

we already have climate models that work. and they get better and better.

i already provided a link twice that shows this very well.

now if you can tell us how exactly to simulate the prcise el nino / la nina timings and show us a way to predict changes in TSI, we can even further improve climate models.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom