Death knell for AGW

[Tonington]

I thought we just had one? I don't require anyone acting in the capacity of judge. I'm well aware of how this debate turned out.

This was not formalized debate, you thought wrong.

I guess I have my answer...

I'm growing tired of repeating myself. My evidence is incontrovertible and I can't understand why anyone would have trouble with that.

Maybe because your evidence is without reference or citation? Just because you or I say something doesn't make it a fact. The odds that you understand that is about 1 in 36 trillion.

I can only conclude that is because I haven't explained it well enough or you don't understand it. You haven't once given an argument as to how my probability theory is wrong except you think it is, has to be, and despite the odds it is happening; so thats your proof which is only proof GW is wrong; so IMO that isn't an argument but wish thinking.

How can I argue against something which has no substance? If it were a formalized debate, you would need to show where your figures come from. He who asserts must also prove. Your blank assertions are without the burden of proof.

Your evidence is correlated data which is great except there are too many variables that invalidate it; not the least of which is probability. Also carbon is one of the least energizing variables so why focus on it? Because Al Gore (inventor of the internet) thinks so? That just isn't good enough for me.

I have given you no evidence, I've been asking for yours. So far you have: warming on two other planets, and a statistic without supporting data. That isn't good enough for me, and it's not good enough for science.

There is a great article in the latest issue of Skeptic called "A Climate Of belief." The author thinks very much as I do and I highly recommend it. Like me he doesn't doubt GW but he doubts the popular believed cause of it. He has different reasons but his and mine make a pretty concrete case that carbon as the cause is complete whooey.

The opening to that article is flawed. Frank says:
The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable.

You don't need a model to analyze the current data we have. You use a model for projections, which is an entirely different exercise. That's called a bare assertion fallacy. No where in his tripe does he provide evidence that the theory of human caused climate change is dependent on model results.

In any event, our knowledge of greenhouse gases is not solely dependent on models. We have spectroscopic measurements of the gases in our atmosphere, satellites measuring the radiation at the surface and all other layers of the atmosphere, we have detailed records in paleo-climate which give us good estimates of climate sensitivity, we have feedback mechanisms that both amplify and dampen the effect, and we have laboratory measurements of the heat trapping properties of greenhouse gases.

His assertion is a losing point to begin with because of the language he uses. He has no caveats. Some models perform very poorly, other models perform very well. Are we going to throw out the models used in economics as well because sometimes they're wrong?

His whole premise is that current climate science lives and dies by the models, which is blatantly false.

 

[Scott Free]

How can I argue against something which has no substance?

I thought you didn't understand probability. Now I see I was right.

I have given you no evidence, I've been asking for yours. So far you have: warming on two other planets, and a statistic without supporting data. That isn't good enough for me, and it's not good enough for science.

Actually it's good enough for a lot of scientists. Remember the issue isn't whether the world is warming but why. There is no evidence except correlated data and piss poor computer models that over a century are accurate to +/- 100 c!!! You'd have a better chance of prediction by throwing darts.

The opening to that article is flawed. Frank says:
The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable.

You don't need a model to analyze the current data we have. You use a model for projections, which is an entirely different exercise. That's called a bare assertion fallacy. No where in his tripe does he provide evidence that the theory of human caused climate change is dependent on model results.

Your wrong. There are many factors in modelling the weather and carbon is the least important. In order to substantiate the correlated data an accurate model is required or an experiment which verifies predictions. So far there isn't one; so to say X is because of Y without any proof just correlated data isn't just bad science it's medieval! Why not say radio waves is the cause? Certainly they have been increasing too. How about roads? Why not? I'm sure there are more and more roads every year. I'm sure there is a correlation.

In any event, our knowledge of greenhouse gases is not solely dependent on models. We have spectroscopic measurements of the gases in our atmosphere, satellites measuring the radiation at the surface and all other layers of the atmosphere, we have detailed records in paleo-climate which give us good estimates of climate sensitivity, we have feedback mechanisms that both amplify and dampen the effect, and we have laboratory measurements of the heat trapping properties of greenhouse gases.

That doesn't matter. It is irrelevant.

There are many factors far more significant to global temperature than carbon - like natural cycles that are revealed in our planets history. Green house gases are very important on Venus (where your pet theories were discovered) but lucky for us we live on Earth.

His assertion is a losing point to begin with because of the language he uses. He has no caveats. Some models perform very poorly, other models perform very well. Are we going to throw out the models used in economics as well because sometimes they're wrong?

I wish the GW models were anywhere near as accurate as economic models. That would be a dream come true!

His whole premise is that current climate science lives and dies by the models, which is blatantly false.

Not true. Without the models all you have is correlated data which isn't evidence it's just really terribly lousy science.

I'm sure there is a correlation between animal populations and GW, roads and GW, maybe hats are less in fashion? Might that be a reason?

When you consider so many variables are more significant than carbon and the odds don't favour three planets and moons (maybe more) simultaneously warming independently of the sun in the same decade; it becomes pretty obvious (to me anyway) that carbon isn't the problem.

It seems very reasonable to me that since the time of Jesus until now we have had favourable conditions for civilization that our civilizations would explode as they have. That accounts for the carbon not the warming. We are probably just returning to a previous condition.

I'm not saying we should pollute but I do think it's a mistake to destroy our economies based on correlated data and we are an awfully long way away from being like Venus.

 

[Scott Free]

Illusions of grandeur.......Ignorant rantings

Oh my!!!!

Is that your final judgement or do I get a second chance oh great one? :roll:

And how was my post illusions of grandeur? Do you make arguments you think are wrong? I don't think I'm wrong. If you do then prove it.

 

[Tonington]

I thought you didn't understand probability. Now I see I was right.

No, you're wrong. You just live in a fantasy world. I know probability very well.

Actually it's good enough for a lot of scientists. Remember the issue isn't whether the world is warming but why. There is no evidence except correlated data and piss poor computer models that over a century are accurate to +/- 100 c!!! You'd have a better chance of prediction by throwing darts.

What is your fascination with correlations? The depth of your statistical knowledge appears to be as profound as your understanding of logic and climate science for that matter.

You're deeply ignorant about models too, likely from reading things like that magazine article and accepting it without question.

Just to show you how little you know, being accurate to +/- 100°C would mean that the model projection misses within a margin of 200°C. Many of the models projected out to 2100 are in the range of 2-4.5°C of added heat given that the status quo continues. How the hell can they be off by 100°C in either direction? The only way they could be is if something catastrophic happens, and then the model is no longer a valid tool because the conditions have been changed from that which the model assumes. Asinine :roll:

Your wrong...In order to substantiate the correlated data an accurate model is required or an experiment which verifies predictions. So far there isn't one; so to say X is because of Y without any proof just correlated data isn't just bad science it's medieval! Why not say radio waves is the cause? Certainly they have been increasing too. How about roads? Why not? I'm sure there are more and more roads every year. I'm sure there is a correlation.

Again, it seems the only statistic you know is correlation, which is the most basic, so I'm not surprised.

That doesn't matter. It is irrelevant.

Of course it matters. Only an ignorant fool would say such a thing. These are the end results of many of those experiments that you say don't exist to verify observations and predictions. It's entirely relevant because you have it in your mind that without global climate models, a climate scientist can't analyze data and find causality, and weight it accordingly. I doubt you've even heard of principle components. Fool.

There are many factors far more significant to global temperature than carbon - like natural cycles that are revealed in our planets history. Green house gases are very important on Venus (where your pet theories were discovered) but lucky for us we live on Earth.

They were not discovered on Venus, Venus simply confirmed predictions associated with greenhouse gases. Radiative physics was being used well before we had measurements of the Venusian atmosphere.

I wish the GW models were anywhere near as accurate as economic models. That would be a dream come true!

Hah, some models maybe. Others not so much. What you don't seem to be capable of understanding is that not all models in any one discipline are cut from the same cloth. You're quite happy to generalize and lump them all together.

Not true. Without the models all you have is correlated data which isn't evidence it's just really terribly lousy science.

So you continue to say, but that doesn't make it true. I now know that's the only statistic you know, and that you've read very little on the statistics used in climate science. If you had of said that once, I might have suspected that you were just being disingenuous. But three times now in this post alone?

I'm sure there is a correlation between animal populations and GW, roads and GW, maybe hats are less in fashion? Might that be a reason?

You're about half a decade at least behind. Fun with stats, global warming is correlated with pirates and Republican Senators. But there is no causative relationship is there? If you read any papers from say the American Geophysical Union, or Geophysical Research Letters, or Science, or Nature, you'd know that no paper is submitted to show a relationship in climate with only correlations. Every scientist worth their salt knows why not to do that, it won't be accepted and published for starters. Every statistics student knows this after one month. Try to keep up.

When you consider so many variables are more significant than carbon and the odds don't favour three planets and moons (maybe more) simultaneously warming independently of the sun in the same decade; it becomes pretty obvious (to me anyway) that carbon isn't the problem.

How do you know they're more significant? What statistics tell you that carbon isn't the problem? Other planets don't have the odds, you're right. For one they don't have increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, they don't have land-use changes, and they don't have the same symptoms at all. You're comparing apples to oranges.

It seems very reasonable to me that since the time of Jesus until now we have had favourable conditions for civilization that our civilizations would explode as they have. That accounts for the carbon not the warming. We are probably just returning to a previous condition.

That's one part of it. More important is human technology and knowledge.

I'm not saying we should pollute but I do think it's a mistake to destroy our economies based on correlated data and we are an awfully long way away from being like Venus.

It's far worse for our economies to do nothing. Think on Zzarchov's questions. It's an extension of the precautionary principle.

 

[Scott Free]

What is your fascination with correlations? The depth of your statistical knowledge appears to be as profound as your understanding of logic and climate science for that matter.

A correlation is not enough evidence on its own for a conclusion.

You're deeply ignorant about models too, likely from reading things like that magazine article and accepting it without question.

No actually, I have found some problems with it but overall he made an excellent presentation IMO. He had better make a good argument too because the readers of that magazine will not let any error go unnoticed.

Just to show you how little you know, being accurate to +/- 100°C would mean that the model projection misses within a margin of 200°C. Many of the models projected out to 2100 are in the range of 2-4.5°C of added heat given that the status quo continues. How the hell can they be off by 100°C in either direction? The only way they could be is if something catastrophic happens, and then the model is no longer a valid tool because the conditions have been changed from that which the model assumes. Asinine :roll:

That was +/- 100°C over 100 years, not just +/- 100°C which means over 100 years the models will be acurate to within 100°C (not 200°C). They could be out 100°C or 2°C but the point is that there is no way to know. The models could as easily predict global cooling as warming.

Over 10 years the models are accurate to +/- 10°C. This means the models are really only accurate to predict very short term weather (1 year to within +/-1°C).

In other words the models are so inaccurate that they do not corroborate the correlated data.

Which means there is no evidence only speculation. Anything could be causing GW.

Again, it seems the only statistic you know is correlation, which is the most basic, so I'm not surprised.

That is the only evidence there is!!!! And its sketchy at best and probably completely wrong!

What evidence should I use? It's the only evidence there is. Surely you don't think I should wish carbon is the culprit? That would be silly. You know, don't you, that wishing a thing to be true and the thing being true are completely different things?

Of course it matters. Only an ignorant fool would say such a thing. These are the end results of many of those experiments that you say don't exist to verify observations and predictions. It's entirely relevant because you have it in your mind that without global climate models, a climate scientist can't analyze data and find causality, and weight it accordingly. I doubt you've even heard of principle components. Fool.

We know global warming is happening. We know carbon traps heat. We don't know that carbon is causing the warming. That is speculation. So what I mean is that in the context of our argument all your data is doing is confirming what we already know. It isn't demonstrating a correlation - it just isn't; because there isn't one!

experiments that prove the earth is warming do not prove why it is warming, only that it is and experiments that prove pollution traps heat do not prove why there is more heat only that there is more.

If any of these experiments proved a correlation then we would have a model that would predict the warming.

There is no model so there is probably no correlation. Factor in the probability that many planets would simultaneously start warming at the same time and we have that there absolutely is no correlation - which BTW the models DO PROVE because they don't work!!!!!

They were not discovered on Venus, Venus simply confirmed predictions associated with greenhouse gases. Radiative physics was being used well before we had measurements of the Venusian atmosphere.

I'm afraid not, the evidence came first and not from earth the theory was speculated on by Carl Sagan and found a home in Al Gore.

I would point out that plant life loves carbon and thrives under such conditions. 500 million years ago the earth had some 20 times the carbon levels and we didn't turn into Venus!!!!

Think about that for a minute... seriously.

Hah, some models maybe. Others not so much. What you don't seem to be capable of understanding is that not all models in any one discipline are cut from the same cloth. You're quite happy to generalize and lump them all together.

Your right; only the good models are so inaccurate. More accurate ones don't exist:

" So many processes have to be considered in the carbon cycle that it is extremely difficult to keep them in mind, and impossible to calculate without building a computer model to simulate them. Scientists interested in the carbon cycle have built a number of such models over the years. Such models can have between 50 and 100 interacting equations describing all the different processes of the carbon cycle that are relevant to the problem of how carbon dioxide changes through geologic time.

To what extent should the answers generated from such models be trusted? Consider this: if there are a dozen processes which we need to understand, and we only grasp each process within an error of 20 percent, the sum-total of the error adds to more than 200 percent! That is, if we now state that the content of carbon dioxide in the air so many million years ago had to be X, the true answer could be anywhere between 3 times X (200% more than stated) and X divided by 3 (200% less). Even if we make the reasonable assumption that half of the errors will cancel, we still get roughly a factor of two error on either side of the uncertainty statement. Thus, at the present state of knowledge, computing the answers will get us ballpark estimates and overall trends but not much more."

- Source

Notice the focus on carbon cycles? Why is that do you suppose? Bad science and biased funding? I think so. Notice also the apologetic reasoning that, though the theory can't make a prediction (he falsely says it can predict general trends which is a wanton lie), it is still true!?!?!

Hose $hit!!!!

You see, when popular hysteria controls funding for peoples lively hoods those people become obliged to feed the hysteria or lose their jobs.

So you continue to say, but that doesn't make it true. I now know that's the only statistic you know, and that you've read very little on the statistics used in climate science. If you had of said that once, I might have suspected that you were just being disingenuous. But three times now in this post alone?

The only validity a theory has is its ability to predict and the GW theory can't predict anything!!!!!!!!! Apologies don't count!!!! Science would still believe in ether and creationism if that were the case!

You and eanassir should write a science book together :lol:

You're about half a decade at least behind. Fun with stats, global warming is correlated with pirates and Republican Senators. But there is no causative relationship is there? If you read any papers from say the American Geophysical Union, or Geophysical Research Letters, or Science, or Nature, you'd know that no paper is submitted to show a relationship in climate with only correlations. Every scientist worth their salt knows why not to do that, it won't be accepted and published for starters. Every statistics student knows this after one month. Try to keep up.

I have read the papers and done so critically. All they have is correlations and broken models with fudged predictions! That's it, thats all!

If they said "we think" or "we have an idea" that carbon may be causing global warming they would be staying true to their art. Instead they are prostituting themselves to popular opinion and pandering to ignorance with stories of horror. Not all, there are a handful of scientists that are staying true but they are a rare breed indeed apparently!

I suppose they figure: what the hell? The worst thing to come of our deception is that the planet will become cleaner. This is the only cause we can control anyway. I think they need to consider the economic impact of their deceit.

they don't have the same symptoms at all. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Warming isn't a symptom of a problem? Then why are we having this conversation? everything is peachy keen right?

That's one part of it. More important is human technology and knowledge.

That doesn't even make sense.

It's far worse for our economies to do nothing.

You know that how? Is it in your crystal ball? Or is this another broad assumption? You seem to be good at those ;-)

Think on Zzarchov's questions. It's an extension of the precautionary principle.

Please, I can only deal with one conspiracy nut at a time.

 

[Scott Free]

How, You make a statement but don't show it.

I am referring to previous posts. Some mine some not. I am not going to repost them for you.

Mind explaining where THAT number comes from?

Why? I think your confused enough.

Also, you still aren't saying whats warming all those planets.

Are you an idiot? I never said I knew... some people.... :roll:

Its not the sun, because then EVERY planet would be warming. But only some are..

How do you know every planet isn't warming? How many can we monitor? How many do we monitor?

Also, how do you know the sun warming wouldn't effect only some planets?

Yes Al Gore is crap, but he isn't a scientist either, but where are you pulling your probability from. Cause it seems like thin air.

I calculated it.

So your logic is, adding carbon warms the atmosphere. We are adding carbon, but that isn't why our atmosphere is warming?

That's right. There are a few planets warming up. We don't know what is causing their atmospheres to energize like they are. We do know (maybe) why we aren't cooling off as quickly as before. That isn't the same as a cause.

Your lying to yourself. EVEN IF (big if), its not the main reason its warming, its a contributing factor. Your house may not be burning because your throwing gasoline on it, but if you don't want it scorched to ash, you should still probably stop.

We aren't even sure if the house is on fire. We just think it's on fire. Reality is though that the atmosphere has, in the past, had a lot more carbon in it than we have now and life flourished. So in reality our house isn't even on fire.

Depends, if there is a scientific process that shows say, the helmet design in question blocks vision and causes more car accidents, then yes, it could be causing broken arms.

That is possible only if more people with breaks show up wearing a specific helmet. Then a correlation has been found and some tests and studies need to be done. Then it needs to be reasonably demonstrated that the helmet does cause that injury.

GW has not been reasonably demonstrated. The models do not work.

thats why we have a scientific method.

Yeah... sure.. maybe once we did. It's pretty much busted.

I notice you still aren't answering my damn question, no good answer?

I did too. Go back and find it.

 

[Tonington]

SF, here's a few fairly simple question for you, since the back and forth quoting is just basically spinning tires. What did you like best about Pat Frank's article? Anything in particular? What details, if there were any, left you with some feeling of disagreement?

I think the answers to these questions will be quite illuminating...

 

[Scott Free]

SF, here's a few fairly simple question for you, since the back and forth quoting is just basically spinning tires. What did you like best about Pat Frank's article? Anything in particular? What details, if there were any, left you with some feeling of disagreement?

I think the answers to these questions will be quite illuminating...

Illuminating how? Your wondering why I won't abandon reason and just accept the popular opinion? I have already explained why.

A theory is garbage if it can not make predictions and it is worse garbage if it is the most unlikely explanation that can't make predictions - it is as simple as that.

GW looks great but it doesn't work. It isn't the reason we're warming. It's just that simple. I would accept it no problem if it we're right, but it isn't. Carbon is only a factor and a small one at that.

This is just another "Y2K bug."

There are thousands of scientist perusing string theory. String theory has not made one prediction - it is unproven. It is a great looking theory so thousands of physicists have dedicated their lives to it but that doesn't make it right - it means they like it. String theory has one thing going for it: its probably right, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for the GW theory.

 

[Tonington]

Illuminating how? Your wondering why I won't abandon reason and just accept the popular opinion? I have already explained why.

I'm asking you about the details, of which you are always scant, and when asked for them, are deflected with more of your $hit. You said you liked it because the guy thinks like you. Hello confirmation bias. You can't even understand how a +/- 100°C accuracy is really a 200°C range, when the current trend if you extrapolated as is( a highly dubious liklihood) would be a 2°C change in 100 years. That's orders of magnitude smaller than your figure.

Illuminating because I have high doubts that you can pick out the implications of what he has said. I'll give you two hints, initial value problem versus a boundary value problem, and how to calculate the uncertainty of the radiative forcing for a global model.

But then what does Frank actually know about climate, have you seen his CV? He's discussing radiation physics, and he is a chemist. I suppose you would be comfortable with sending a kid to see a dentist when they need to see a heart surgeon? That is why his article is in a magazine, and not the peer review where he has earned some respect.

 

[L Gilbert]

Illuminating how? Your wondering why I won't abandon reason and just accept the popular opinion? I have already explained why.

A theory is garbage if it can not make predictions and it is worse garbage if it is the most unlikely explanation that can't make predictions - it is as simple as that.

GW looks great but it doesn't work. It isn't the reason we're warming. It's just that simple. I would accept it no problem if it we're right, but it isn't. Carbon is only a factor and a small one at that.

This is just another "Y2K bug."

There are thousands of scientist perusing string theory. String theory has not made one prediction - it is unproven. It is a great looking theory so thousands of physicists have dedicated their lives to it but that doesn't make it right - it means they like it. String theory has one thing going for it: its probably right, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for the GW theory.

Any theory can make predictions. How sound the predictions turn out to be depends on how sound the theory is. BTW, string theory isn't a theory; only a hypothesis.
GW looks great but it doesn't work and isn't the reason we are warming? Global warming isn't the reason we are warming? Wait till the news media hears that one. lol

Anyway, folks, so far I've seen a few reasons why we are warming, not just one. This isn't like the science of gravity or astronomy, which have been around for a while; this is fairly new and people are just beginning to see things about climatology. I cannot see where there can be many definitive answers and I can see an awful lot of hypotheses. To be a doubter is one thing, but to gather up a frown on one's face and declare that we did not have a hand in warming, or declare that it is strictly the sun's fault, or even be the idiot that declares there's no warming going on is foolish. Most scientists I know of would say they have reason to suspect this or that. That is how hypotheses are initiated. Then they go about testing it, modifying it, abandoning it, etc.
Most people I know of have no idea what the difference between theories, hypotheses, and laws are, and this ignorance makes them say the silliest things sometimes.

 

[Scott Free]

I'm asking you about the details, of which you are always scant, and when asked for them, are deflected with more of your $hit.

WTF is your problem? I have torn your arguments to shreds with my "scant" details. I have news for you: it really doesn't take much.

I can't help it if you can't see that.

Illuminating because I have high doubts that you can pick out the implications of what he has said.

You don't doubt broken models and improbable events but you doubt the scientific method and cling to correlated data? :roll: lol

I'll give you two hints, initial value problem versus a boundary value problem, and how to calculate the uncertainty of the radiative forcing for a global model.

Read it again. He clearly points out that people like you are obviously "cooking" the model. There are factors far more (by a factor of 10) important than carbon. He isn't saying they haven't figured out how to make carbon more important LMAO!!!! You just don't get it at all do you?

But then what does Frank actually know about climate, have you seen his CV? He's discussing radiation physics, and he is a chemist.

He understands both the scientific method and the mathematics of the model which is a whole f**k of a lot more than you do.

I suppose you would be comfortable with sending a kid to see a dentist when they need to see a heart surgeon?

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand high school level mathematics.

That is why his article is in a magazine, and not the peer review where he has earned some respect.

LMAO!!!! Just as I thought The whole GW issue is some kind of popularity contest for you, where you care neither for method or fact; correlation and consensus is enough for you! HA! I care only for the truth.

He has my total respect for being one of a small handful of scientists with some objectivity and not just jumping on the GW band waggon.

 

[Tonington]

Most people I know of have no idea what the difference between theories, hypotheses, and laws are, and this ignorance makes them say the silliest things sometimes.

That very circumstance prompted a thread from me in this sub-forum. Some people on this site use the word theory (when discussing science) in the common usage, which in scientific terms is to hypothesize. A hypothesis only becomes a theory when there is substantial agreement in disciplines, substantial evidence, when it can make correct predictions, and when it can be falsified. AGW is a theory, but that isn't to say it's set in stone, however. Right now, it explains much more of the observations and phenomena we have than any other. You don't throw out a working theory unless you have something better, which can explain more. I don't know how many times I've said this, but if the sun were for instance the implicated factor, rather than greenhouse gases, we wouldn't have the degree of stratospheric cooling that we have now, which is predicted by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. It's things like that-observations of our planet, that make the theory of AGW most likely.

 

[L Gilbert]

That's what I have understood so far.

Another sort that says things that make me laugh sometimes are the anti-bandwagon bandwagon members. lol

 

[Tonington]

WTF is your problem?

Probably the arrogance of an ignorant fool.

You don't doubt broken models and improbable events but you doubt the scientific method and cling to correlated data? :roll: lol

Get out from your straw man world. I've never once mentioned any correlation. That's your argument, which I explained already.

Unlike you, some people (myself included) can debate the words and ideas of other posters. I don't have to make up things you've said. The record speaks for itself.

Read it again. He clearly points out that people like you are obviously "cooking" the model. There are factors far more (by a factor of 10) important than carbon. He isn't saying they haven't figured out how to make carbon more important LMAO!!!! You just don't get it at all do you?

Is that what I said? More of your imaginary straw man world...Just because you can't understand what I said you make pathetically inept attempts to put words in my mouth that are easy to argue. You're a useless tool.

He understands both the scientific method and the mathematics of the model which is a whole f**k of a lot more than you do.

Oh, you think so? I know that you can't model the climate with a linear model. It's a highly non-linear system. I know that uncertainty doesn't propogate in the manner Frank explains, think back to the 200°C range he gives for accuracy, both laughable and idiotic. I know that you can't use an initial value model like Frank does, because the climate system is not closed, hence why there exists no monotonically increasing temperature in any model output for global climate, and why there exists no monotonically increasing temperature record in the observations on this planet. I know that the scientific method is what separates the wheat from the chaff, and I know why Frank didn't write this for a journal.

That's for starters.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand high school level mathematics.

Wow, I didn't know that. All this time I thought you had to go to grad school before you could get accepted into high school. I guess I've been doing it backwards all the while:roll:

LMAO!!!! Just as I thought The whole GW issue is some kind of popularity contest for you, where you care neither for method or fact; correlation and consensus is enough for you! HA! I care only for the truth.

Peer review isn't a popularity contest, it's where your academic equals evaluate your work, like a council of Greeks debating philosophy. A magazine is the popular press. I doubt you even could explain the peer review process. It's not a catch phrase you dolt.

He has my total respect for being one of a small handful of scientists with some objectivity and not just jumping on the GW band waggon.

He has your respect because he thinks like you. That is not very objective. You have no idea how many scientists are objective, amongst a myriad other things.

 

[Tonington]

That's what I have understood so far.

Another sort that says things that make me laugh sometimes are the anti-bandwagon bandwagon members. lol

Delicious irony isn't it?:lol:

 

[Scott Free]

Probably the arrogance of an ignorant fool.

Probably.

Get out from your straw man world. I've never once mentioned any correlation.

So you don't even understand the data in your own arguments!! LMAO!!!

Unlike you, some people (myself included) can debate the words and ideas of other posters. I don't have to make up things you've said. The record speaks for itself.

You seriously don't understand anything do you?

Is that what I said?

Um... yes... :lol:

Maybe you should go back and figure out what you said :roll:

Oh, you think so? I know that you can't model the climate with a linear model. It's a highly non-linear system. I know that uncertainty doesn't propogate in the manner Frank explains, think back to the 200°C range he gives for accuracy, both laughable and idiotic.

um.. it was 100°C range. Maybe you shouldn't throw the word idiot around so easily, you know, people in glass houses and all that. ;-)

I know that you can't use an initial value model like Frank does, because the climate system is not closed, hence why there exists no monotonically increasing temperature in any model output for global climate, and why there exists no monotonically increasing temperature record in the observations on this planet.

I know it! They were handing out PhDs to anyone 4000 years ago! :angryfire:

I guess I've been doing it backwards all the while:roll:

It would explain some things. It's a good theory, do you have any proof or just a correlation?

Peer review isn't a popularity contest, it's where your academic equals evaluate your work,

And so your going to $hit on this guy because he wrote for the Skeptic?

That doesn't seem like a straw man to you? 8O

He has your respect because he thinks like you. That is not very objective.

Actually it is exactly because he is being objective that I respect him.

Why can't you get it through your thick skull that I don't have anything against GW except that it is wrong?

Do you still believe in Santa? Do wish you did? Seems like it.

I just want to know what is really happening to the planet.

 

[Tonington]

So you don't even understand the data in your own arguments!! LMAO!!!

Umm, yes I do. I never said anything about a correlation. For the last time you thick skulled moron, there is more to statistics than correlations. You seem to be having a hard time with that. Go ahead, try an academic search on Google, or Google a scientists name to get their CV, and look at the research instead of regurgitating the tripe you've read elsewhere.

Um... yes... :lol:

Um, no it isn't. Here's what I said:

"I'll give you two hints, initial value problem versus a boundary value problem, and how to calculate the uncertainty of the radiative forcing for a global model."

And here's what you said to that:

"Read it again. He clearly points out that people like you are obviously "cooking" the model. There are factors far more (by a factor of 10) important than carbon. He isn't saying they haven't figured out how to make carbon more important LMAO!!!! You just don't get it at all do you?"

You want me to explain what I said, since you obviously don't understand it?

um.. it was 100°C range. Maybe you shouldn't throw the word idiot around so easily, you know, people in glass houses and all that. ;-)

You really are challenged. Here's what you said:

"There is no evidence except correlated data and piss poor computer models that over a century are accurate to +/- 100 c!!! "

Do you understand that +/- 100 °C means that the range is up to 100°C above, and 100°C below what the true value would be. That is the implications of what you said. That's what the +/- means you dumbass.

I know it! They were handing out PhDs to anyone 4000 years ago! :angryfire:

You know very little about what you've been saying here in this thread. Go educate yourself on the matters if that's even possible. I give it a 1 in 36 trillion chance that you can grasp the essence of the dichotomy.

It would explain some things. It's a good theory, do you have any proof or just a correlation?

A good theory? Even when you're sarcastic you're still dumb as dirt.

And so your going to $hit on this guy because he wrote for the Skeptic?

I'm not $hitting on him, I'm $hitting on the article. You can't even understand that...

That doesn't seem like a straw man to you? 8O

Not at all. You called my views a popularity contest, and I explained the difference. I'm not making up things you supposedly said that are easily refutable. Maybe you should read up on what logical fallacies are so that you might understand them better.

Actually it is exactly because he is being objective that I respect him.

So you say, but then you say a lot of dumb $hit.

Why can't you get it through your thick skull that I don't have anything against GW except that it is wrong?

Oh, I understand completely. I know you think it's wrong, you've just given red herrings and wonky stats and one article to prove your point. I'm trying to find out if you have anything to say besides recycled talking points. So far you're coming up short. When I make a constructive comment you reply with snide sarcastic remarks.

The content of your next reply will determine if I choose to continue with this discussion, or if I write it off as lost time. I tried to meet you half way with the proposal for a formal debate. Whatever. No skin of my back.

 

[Scott Free]

Alright, I'm tired of this.

I have no desire to get into an ad hominem debate.

When your prepared to act like an adult let me know.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

wow, Walter is at it again. Sure. Another discussion to copy and counter-react the negative effect of Al-Gore. Hopefully, it doesn't go as nuts as Al-Gore's or as troublesome as Al-Gore's.
Below is a story about Al-Gore and the judges. Hope everyone likes it:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=50e42b47-ca21-47c1-bbb1-caf456348677&k=21371
If people want to be tough, please get some real skills.

Sorry about the vague sentences. My vague sentences are my bad habits.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

Apology

Um. I'm very sorry for my late arrival. I had to take care of some business about the health care and other people's souls an purposes. I am sorry for the late arrival.:angry3: