r-j
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,689
Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation
- Thread starter batvette
- Start date
- Status
Arnold Martin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 278
Correction sir ..... you (warmists) had a climate model that did not work .... the weather failed to cooperate with your predictions
So the special interest group (warmists) mollycoddled and modified the busted climate model and came out with a new and improved one .... but the planet is being disobedient (again) by not following the "Settled Science"
Along the way you (warmists) pulled another sneaky trick to protect your failures by changing "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"
And using that bit of trickery you now say when the planet cools down it is proof of Climate Change caused by Global Warming..
No wonder there are currently so many "unbelievers"
If you have a fresh "Climate Model" for 2013 to 2023 (or thereabouts) please provide the link .... I would like to see it please. Thank you.
I have tired of "modified" "adjusted" "historical" "models".
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
from the way you use the words "climate model", it becomes very obvious that you do not know the slightest thing about climate modeling or climate models.
and do you have any evidence for your accusations?
when do you think this alleged changing of words happened?
i already provided evidence that people on the denier side wanted a change in words. so why do you now accuse "warmists" for it?
and about wich models are you actually talking? can you provide some links pls?
you sound like someone that got his stiff from the denier blogs only.
did you read any scientific publications? any of the reports from scientific scources?
my bet is that you do not even read much about it on the denier blogs...
Arnold Martin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 278
.
Listen to what what a renowned Physicist - Professor Pierre Darriulat has to say about the recent Summary for Policymakers (SPM) released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That’s the document that was drafted by 65 hand-picked IPCC personnel.
Darriulat says “the main point to appreciate” is that, because the Summary was written for policymakers rather than for other scientists, it “cannot be a scientific document.”
When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…or they try to convey what they “consensually” think…at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter…they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013...icist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/
Listen to what what a renowned Physicist - Professor Pierre Darriulat has to say about the recent Summary for Policymakers (SPM) released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That’s the document that was drafted by 65 hand-picked IPCC personnel.
Darriulat says “the main point to appreciate” is that, because the Summary was written for policymakers rather than for other scientists, it “cannot be a scientific document.”
When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…or they try to convey what they “consensually” think…at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter…they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013...icist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/
So Arnold, what would you do about the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Nothing?
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
no, non of the IPCC reports, also not the SPM, are drafted by IPCC personel.
what is the evidence for this claim? what do you exactly mean with IPCC personel?
macdoc
Philosopher
AM
So you consider the comments of a retired 85 year old physicist commenting on the POLICY statement as some blanket condemnation of the reality of AGW.
Pardon my laughter.
DO you have any idea of how ridiculous you come across in an international science forum ???
Tell me ....what IS the science message regarding AGW? In your own words.
Are you in agreement with the head of Exxon?
•••
Yet they DID make a reliable prediction in 1981 that in reality turned out to be on the low side.
Because the consumption of fossil fuels/C02 release rate is not a predictable number it must be done as a range of outcomes and is.
We act on probabilities all the time..
You realize that not all of areodynamic theory is known to science yet you still fly. All science carries a degree of uncertainty and scientists are the first to admit it.
But science also relies on testably theory and observation and both of those indicate...
it's getting warmer
we're responsible.
Once you get your head around that ( as Exxon chief finally did )
THEN there is a meaningful dialogue to be had as the Exxon head noted and you could earn some respect here by concurring with.
Right now you are tucked in with the anti-vaxxers and anti-evolution cranks....as you should be
So you consider the comments of a retired 85 year old physicist commenting on the POLICY statement as some blanket condemnation of the reality of AGW.
Pardon my laughter.
DO you have any idea of how ridiculous you come across in an international science forum ???
Tell me ....what IS the science message regarding AGW? In your own words.
Are you in agreement with the head of Exxon?
•••
Yet they DID make a reliable prediction in 1981 that in reality turned out to be on the low side.
Because the consumption of fossil fuels/C02 release rate is not a predictable number it must be done as a range of outcomes and is.
We act on probabilities all the time..
You realize that not all of areodynamic theory is known to science yet you still fly. All science carries a degree of uncertainty and scientists are the first to admit it.
But science also relies on testably theory and observation and both of those indicate...
it's getting warmer
we're responsible.
Once you get your head around that ( as Exxon chief finally did )
THEN there is a meaningful dialogue to be had as the Exxon head noted and you could earn some respect here by concurring with.
Right now you are tucked in with the anti-vaxxers and anti-evolution cranks....as you should be
Last edited:
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,831
Clearly you don't understand government, lol.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Surely not, as I myself am not a native English speaker, as it's clearly stated in my signature and shown by my style of communication.
I'm just an intermediate student of English. If I were a native English speaker I would easily spot the hierarchy of sockpuppets that are participating in this thread, both the christmassy ones and those operating all year round.
I thought the user circumstantially identify as Jules Galen had resorted to grammatical means to add more ambiguity to "their" discourse.
Last edited:
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
I'm quoting this load of tosh of yours just to get your attention. You'll surely make an effort to understand that I and others cannot take your caricaturization as a departure for a reply. There are yet some points you left pending from previous messages of yours.
What about your coded prediction in the post where you confess not even having a high school education?
And why, if you are a pilot in Hudson bay who are supposedly first-hand knowledgeable about the numbers and whereabouts of polar bears, had you to resort to two photographs of the same Norwegian polar bear you found in the Internet? Didn't you have any photograph of polar bears in Hudson Bay? Are they too thin? Canadian websites about helicopter tours -your declared place and profession- have those photos aplenty.
Last edited:
trustbutverify
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,542
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but you have misunderstood me.
Then:
I was referring to Jules Galen, who ridiculed DC, whom I believe is not a native English speaker, for slightly misspelling the word "understand". That ridicule seems especially rude considering the error he then made, and you commented on.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Oh, I see! I had misunderstood. It's the season's usual sockpuppet and parachutist storm in the global warming thread that always make me a bit uncomfortable. It's all usually ended by January 2nd.
Jules Galen
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,726
Let's see how that went. In reference to what I had been saying, DC wrote "...its not only smart people understanding it, its dumb and ignorant people not udnerstanding it."
So...according to DC, anyone not seeing the subject DC's way is "Dumb and Ignorant" because - and wait for it - according to DC they are not "udnerstanding it."
Seriously, when I saw what DC posted I almost fell out of my chair laughing. To call someone ignorant and dumb because of their lack of "udnerstanding" makes their poor choice of manners and words a most appealing target.
Anyways, I hope this gives you all a better "udnerstanding" of the issue.
Anyways...back to Global Warming.
What did you guys think about the scandal at east Anglia University where the Climate Scientists got caught "hiding the decline" in Global Temps, telling lies about their research, and smearing the good names of anyone who dared disagree with them?
r-j
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,689
Are you seriously asking that?
r-j
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,689
It's pedantic in the extreme to focus on typos, mispellings or even the occasional bad grammer. (Yes, there are two misspelled words in that sentence, just to make a point)
There is a constant flood of horrific and mangled English itt, but I just ignore it, it's petty and insulting to avoid the meaning and focus on the writers lack of mastery of what might not be their native language.
The almost total lack of science, and the constant focus on people is far more irritating than the occasional language barrier.
I can usually tell what the person, drunk as they might be, is trying to say. It's pedantry in the extreme to pretend not to get the point.
macdoc
Philosopher
The pair of you deserve each other....neither one of you could hold a serious conversation on climate science. Have fun trading stupidities.
JG - DC and others including Alec are ESL....so STFU. You are a laughingstock as it is....don't make it worse. Both are working scientists - something you know very little of.
Nattering about stolen emails is NOT climate science.....it's just more agitprop from you - the world has moved on to solutions not denial. Even Exxon has and you can't get there....why is that?
You want to discuss climate science.
Then answer the question put to you innumerable times...
Is water vapour a GHG?
I predict you will not.
JG - DC and others including Alec are ESL....so STFU. You are a laughingstock as it is....don't make it worse. Both are working scientists - something you know very little of.
Nattering about stolen emails is NOT climate science.....it's just more agitprop from you - the world has moved on to solutions not denial. Even Exxon has and you can't get there....why is that?
You want to discuss climate science.
Then answer the question put to you innumerable times...
Is water vapour a GHG?
I predict you will not.
Jules Galen
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,726
A nice cover-up that saved the careers of a lot of people who routinely would not share the raw data they used for their research so that others could confirm their findings and who conspired to destroy evidence of their wrongdoings.
As a result of the incident, Michael Mann's "Secret Raw Data" was released, and then we found out that the "hockey stick warming" he had derived from it was so shoddy science as to beggar belief.
In the end, the the "Global Warming" religion lost a lot of faithful.
- Status