Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI (Read 1235 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • 152

  • 3

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #25
In my experience, they start talking about the Rothschild's and the trilateral commission or else they get in their Mercedes paid for by the fossil fuel industry but maybe that's just me.  ::)

Yes that's just you.  Evidence is what they quite unreasonably ask for.
Correct. They do ask for it quite unreasonably, and whenever they are given it their immediate reaction is to claim it is not evidence and that they want evidence. This is, as you so rightly pointed out, quite unreasonable behaviour. However, it's all they have. Poor things.

No.  There's a significant split now in what is considered as evidence.  The climate alarmist community present the output from models as evidence.  Actual scientists maintain that models are hypotheses which need to be confirmed by measurements in the real world.  Whenever model output is presented as evidence there will be scientists saying that is unreasonable because it is always a circular argument.  You can count on it and it isn't gong to go away.

  • JonF
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,011

  • 310

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #26
Who's he? Do you know the definition of "hyperbole"?

Scientific consensus arises from evidence, experiment, analysis, and replication. Not from long lists of loonies.

I feel sorry for my granddaughter and the world in which she'll live.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
  • 4,316

  • 896

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #27
Who's he? Do you know the definition of "hyperbole"?

Scientific consensus arises from evidence, experiment, analysis, and replication. Not from long lists of loonies.

I feel sorry for my granddaughter and the world in which she'll live.
Because it will have people like Cletus in it? :grin:
Truth is out of style

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
  • 4,316

  • 896

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #28
In my experience, they start talking about the Rothschild's and the trilateral commission or else they get in their Mercedes paid for by the fossil fuel industry but maybe that's just me.  ::)

Yes that's just you.  Evidence is what they quite unreasonably ask for.
Correct. They do ask for it quite unreasonably, and whenever they are given it their immediate reaction is to claim it is not evidence and that they want evidence. This is, as you so rightly pointed out, quite unreasonable behaviour. However, it's all they have. Poor things.

No.  There's a significant split now in what is considered as evidence.  The climate alarmist community present the output from models as evidence.
You've just proved my point. Nice work, mate. :parrot:
Truth is out of style

  • 152

  • 3

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #29
I saw that article yesterday, and just thought "Meh". Let me see the list of people who give a fuck. :parrot:

Well we could start with the incensed JonF.
Not incensed, just amazed at the use of a stupid tactic.
Now you're amazed - not incensed but amazed I tell you! - that some other scientists group together to make their own position to the contrary known against the background cacophony of the enormously funded alarmists.
Exactly, except the vast majority of them are not scientists of any stripe,

Going to ask for the final time - exactly who the fuck are John Abraham and you to decide that "the vast majority" of those people with stated qualifications "are not scientists of any stripe"?  That's a wonderful argument.  Here you go - all scientists who claim CAGW are not scientists of any stripe.  That was easy.

Quote
and lists of people that disagree are pointless without presenting the evidence why they disagree.

Breathtaking.  What you've done here is to invert the scientific method.  There's a guy called Kevin Trenberth who likes to do that too.  Won't go on but interested to know what you think about a concept called the null hypothesis?
  • Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 04:56:16 PM by Cephus0

  • 152

  • 3

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #30
Who's he? Do you know the definition of "hyperbole"?

Scientific consensus arises from evidence, experiment, analysis, and replication. Not from long lists of loonies.

I feel sorry for my granddaughter and the world in which she'll live.

I feel sorry for your granddaughter too but meanwhile

Quote
evidence, experiment, analysis, and replication

Please oh please provide some.

  • 152

  • 3

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #31
I feel sorry for my granddaughter and the world in which she'll live.

Jon I apologise.  I have a different view on the science from the current mainstream and one that is not all that unusual.  You will be pleased to know that I am fully committed to environmental issues and have a personal carbon footprint which would make a tiny little bird rethink its profligate ways.  I am in fact dismayed that the real environmental issues which desperately need addressing are being ignored as a result of what I consider to be a completely unsupportable and politically motivated red carbon dioxide herring.

  • 522

  • 97

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #32
I saw that article yesterday, and just thought "Meh". Let me see the list of people who give a fuck. :parrot:

Well we could start with the incensed JonF.
Not incensed, just amazed at the use of a stupid tactic.

Lol for how many decades now have we we been browbeaten with the endless whine about "the 97% consensus" in lieu of evidence?  Now you're amazed - not incensed but amazed I tell you! - that some other scientists group together to make their own position to the contrary known against the background cacophony of the enormously funded alarmists.  That list btw is nothing more than a place marker and is growing by the day.  Just a thought but did you also think the 'scientists' march on Washington was a stupid tactic?  Were you demanding to see all participants qualifications and avidly questioning them?  I missed John Abraham's in-depth expose of that.

Quote
They lack of qualifications is not in their titles, but rather in the absence of any reason to believe they have a clue and quite a few reasons to believe they don't. Several were discussed at my link. Care to defend their qualifications?

No one cares what you believe.  Your link comes straight out of the box from the most rabid of partisan online sources.  It fails to even link to or quote from the petition about which it is whining.  It plunges straight into a pathetic tirade of supposed character and qualification assassinations and that I guess is the style of thing you prefer.

You should know, but clearly do not, that contributors to  climate science come from a vast range of disciplines and all of them have a right to their opinions.  Anyone at all has a right to their opinions and is at liberty to point out when the scientific method is being routinely abused.

No, I do not care to 'defend their qualifications' you pompous fuckwit.  If you are unhappy with them as presented by your Guardian hack then write to their respective employers and have them drummed out of their positions.  For the retired ones you may prefer to write to the institutions from which their qualifications were conferred and have them retrospectively withdrawn for the heinous crime of disagreeing with TR poster JonF.  And since you're so keen on the requirement of having impeccable qualifications to hold an opinion I'll ask again - what are John Abraham's qualifications for dismissing out of hand some three hundred scientists with whatever qualifications they hold?  Do his qualifications entitle him to hold an opinion?  The best thing of all about your link was the opening line "If you read my articles regularly, you may have noticed multiple times I have stated that the scientific argument is over ..."  John has stated has he?  And his qualifications for making such an utterly delusional statement are what exactly?

Are you saying that their qualifications are irrelevant, or that you think their qualifications are sufficient to establish their credibility?
Bump

  • Doobie Keebler
  • Needs a Life
  • Giddyup America!
  • 710

  • 257

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #33
:stare:

Who are you talking to?  With multiple postscripts?

Obviously I am talking to anyone but you, as you've made it plain here and elsewhere, that you will go out of your way to arrive at a disingenuous conclusion in your interpretation of anothers words.

Quote
And what are you talking about?

You have a strange inability to connect 2 and 2 to arrive at 4. For example, the first postscript done in jest, addresses your horseshit assertion ...
Quote
Lol for how many decades now have we we been browbeaten with the endless whine about "the 97% consensus" in lieu of evidence?  Now you're amazed - not incensed but amazed I tell you! - that some other scientists group together to make their own position to the contrary known against the background cacophony of the enormously funded alarmists.

That survey of the papers in the field that started what has become the admittedly meme-ish "97% consensus" was done less than four years ago, making your "browbeating for decades!" with it a hot pant-load. Was that too hard to put together ?

Have you problems, in my second postscript of jest, with understanding my assertion that you are projecting when discussing what someone else should do to ruin another person who disagrees with them? Barking about it as though it would be second nature to the person you recommend the behavior to?

Quote
Look n/m.  I know you're upset and everything but hang in there and the voices will go away.  Prolly best if you stop posting during the healing process though.

I'm curious, can you explain how you arrived the conclusion, through my one post that obviously mocks you, that I am upset in any way? Let alone any of the other overblown superlatives I highlighted that you'd ascribed to everyone else in the thread in your long rant of childish lashing out?

Actually n/m, people like you that feel a constant stream of hyperbole and invective are fine discourse regularly engage in forms of gaslighting and misattribution. It's pathetic, actually.

  • 152

  • 3

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #34
I saw that article yesterday, and just thought "Meh". Let me see the list of people who give a fuck. :parrot:

Well we could start with the incensed JonF.
Not incensed, just amazed at the use of a stupid tactic.

Lol for how many decades now have we we been browbeaten with the endless whine about "the 97% consensus" in lieu of evidence?  Now you're amazed - not incensed but amazed I tell you! - that some other scientists group together to make their own position to the contrary known against the background cacophony of the enormously funded alarmists.  That list btw is nothing more than a place marker and is growing by the day.  Just a thought but did you also think the 'scientists' march on Washington was a stupid tactic?  Were you demanding to see all participants qualifications and avidly questioning them?  I missed John Abraham's in-depth expose of that.

Quote
They lack of qualifications is not in their titles, but rather in the absence of any reason to believe they have a clue and quite a few reasons to believe they don't. Several were discussed at my link. Care to defend their qualifications?

No one cares what you believe.  Your link comes straight out of the box from the most rabid of partisan online sources.  It fails to even link to or quote from the petition about which it is whining.  It plunges straight into a pathetic tirade of supposed character and qualification assassinations and that I guess is the style of thing you prefer.

You should know, but clearly do not, that contributors to  climate science come from a vast range of disciplines and all of them have a right to their opinions.  Anyone at all has a right to their opinions and is at liberty to point out when the scientific method is being routinely abused.

No, I do not care to 'defend their qualifications' you pompous fuckwit.  If you are unhappy with them as presented by your Guardian hack then write to their respective employers and have them drummed out of their positions.  For the retired ones you may prefer to write to the institutions from which their qualifications were conferred and have them retrospectively withdrawn for the heinous crime of disagreeing with TR poster JonF.  And since you're so keen on the requirement of having impeccable qualifications to hold an opinion I'll ask again - what are John Abraham's qualifications for dismissing out of hand some three hundred scientists with whatever qualifications they hold?  Do his qualifications entitle him to hold an opinion?  The best thing of all about your link was the opening line "If you read my articles regularly, you may have noticed multiple times I have stated that the scientific argument is over ..."  John has stated has he?  And his qualifications for making such an utterly delusional statement are what exactly?

Are you saying that their qualifications are irrelevant, or that you think their qualifications are sufficient to establish their credibility?
Bump

I'm saying they are some people.  With some qualifications.  We can all play this stupid game of who is qualified to hold an opinion on what until the end of time and it is a game much beloved by the alarmist fraternity.  Except of course when it goes the other way.  I don't see anyone whining about James Hansen making his graphic predictions of sea level rise doom when he is in fact an atmospheric scientist.  Wtf does he know about oceans and ice caps?  What qualifies him to hold an opinion?  All you're engaging in here is a blend of massive confirmation bias with the customary smear campaign.  I got tired of asking what qualifications the OP Guardian author holds which justify his casual dismissal of the opinions of some three hundred scientists.  Perhaps you'd like to comment on that?  Or perhaps not.

Meanwhile, since you appear to love this game, feel free to exercise your passion for it here.  Much more fun that the Guardian's cherry-picked handful and I'm sure you'll be able to manage a superior and more comprehensive smear job than John Abraham's feeble rushed effort.

  • 152

  • 3

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #35
:stare:

Who are you talking to?  With multiple postscripts?

Obviously I am talking to anyone but you, as you've made it plain here and elsewhere, that you will go out of your way to arrive at a disingenuous conclusion in your interpretation of anothers words.

Quote
And what are you talking about?

You have a strange inability to connect 2 and 2 to arrive at 4. For example, the first postscript done in jest, addresses your horseshit assertion ...
Quote
Lol for how many decades now have we we been browbeaten with the endless whine about "the 97% consensus" in lieu of evidence?  Now you're amazed - not incensed but amazed I tell you! - that some other scientists group together to make their own position to the contrary known against the background cacophony of the enormously funded alarmists.

That survey of the papers in the field that started what has become the admittedly meme-ish "97% consensus" was done less than four years ago, making your "browbeating for decades!" with it a hot pant-load. Was that too hard to put together ?

Have you problems, in my second postscript of jest, with understanding my assertion that you are projecting when discussing what someone else should do to ruin another person who disagrees with them? Barking about it as though it would be second nature to the person you recommend the behavior to?

Quote
Look n/m.  I know you're upset and everything but hang in there and the voices will go away.  Prolly best if you stop posting during the healing process though.

I'm curious, can you explain how you arrived the conclusion, through my one post that obviously mocks you, that I am upset in any way? Let alone any of the other overblown superlatives I highlighted that you'd ascribed to everyone else in the thread in your long rant of childish lashing out?

Actually n/m, people like you that feel a constant stream of hyperbole and invective are fine discourse regularly engage in forms of gaslighting and misattribution. It's pathetic, actually.

You think you're curious.  What you are though is unhinged and I don't feel comfortable making it any worse than it already is.  So long and I hope things work out for you ok.

  • JonF
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,011

  • 310

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #36
Going to ask for the final time - exactly who the fuck are John Abraham and you to decide that "the vast majority" of those people with stated qualifications "are not scientists of any stripe"?
It's obvious to the meanest intelligence from inspecting the list, and further obvious because of your inability to mount any defense.

Quote
Quote
and lists of people that disagree are pointless without presenting the evidence why they disagree.

Breathtaking.  What you've done here is to invert the scientific method.  There's a guy called Kevin Trenberth who likes to do that too.  Won't go on but interested to know what you think about a concept called the null hypothesis?
Really?  The scientific method is based on lists of people that disagree without presenting the evidence why they disagree?  Who knew?

Looks like we're wasting a lot of research money, all we should be doing is making lists.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,011

  • 310

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #37
Who's he? Do you know the definition of "hyperbole"?

Scientific consensus arises from evidence, experiment, analysis, and replication. Not from long lists of loonies.

I feel sorry for my granddaughter and the world in which she'll live.

I feel sorry for your granddaughter too but meanwhile

Quote
evidence, experiment, analysis, and replication

Please oh please provide some.
Wrong thread, way off topic. But there's plenty available to anyone who looks.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,011

  • 310

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #38
I feel sorry for my granddaughter and the world in which she'll live.

Jon I apologise.  I have a different view on the science from the current mainstream and one that is not all that unusual.  You will be pleased to know that I am fully committed to environmental issues and have a personal carbon footprint which would make a tiny little bird rethink its profligate ways.  I am in fact dismayed that the real environmental issues which desperately need addressing are being ignored as a result of what I consider to be a completely unsupportable and politically motivated red carbon dioxide herring.
OK.  You do have a serious attitude problem.

But your disagreement, and the disagreement of those 300, doesn't change reality.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,011

  • 310

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #39
I'm saying they are some people.  With some qualifications.
Relevant qualifications (not necessarily academic) are the issue.  I assume you have some qualifications in some field; does that mean that your opinion of MOND is something scientists should take into account?
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • 522

  • 97

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #40
I saw that article yesterday, and just thought "Meh". Let me see the list of people who give a fuck. :parrot:

Well we could start with the incensed JonF.
Not incensed, just amazed at the use of a stupid tactic.

Lol for how many decades now have we we been browbeaten with the endless whine about "the 97% consensus" in lieu of evidence?  Now you're amazed - not incensed but amazed I tell you! - that some other scientists group together to make their own position to the contrary known against the background cacophony of the enormously funded alarmists.  That list btw is nothing more than a place marker and is growing by the day.  Just a thought but did you also think the 'scientists' march on Washington was a stupid tactic?  Were you demanding to see all participants qualifications and avidly questioning them?  I missed John Abraham's in-depth expose of that.

Quote
They lack of qualifications is not in their titles, but rather in the absence of any reason to believe they have a clue and quite a few reasons to believe they don't. Several were discussed at my link. Care to defend their qualifications?

No one cares what you believe.  Your link comes straight out of the box from the most rabid of partisan online sources.  It fails to even link to or quote from the petition about which it is whining.  It plunges straight into a pathetic tirade of supposed character and qualification assassinations and that I guess is the style of thing you prefer.

You should know, but clearly do not, that contributors to  climate science come from a vast range of disciplines and all of them have a right to their opinions.  Anyone at all has a right to their opinions and is at liberty to point out when the scientific method is being routinely abused.

No, I do not care to 'defend their qualifications' you pompous fuckwit.  If you are unhappy with them as presented by your Guardian hack then write to their respective employers and have them drummed out of their positions.  For the retired ones you may prefer to write to the institutions from which their qualifications were conferred and have them retrospectively withdrawn for the heinous crime of disagreeing with TR poster JonF.  And since you're so keen on the requirement of having impeccable qualifications to hold an opinion I'll ask again - what are John Abraham's qualifications for dismissing out of hand some three hundred scientists with whatever qualifications they hold?  Do his qualifications entitle him to hold an opinion?  The best thing of all about your link was the opening line "If you read my articles regularly, you may have noticed multiple times I have stated that the scientific argument is over ..."  John has stated has he?  And his qualifications for making such an utterly delusional statement are what exactly?

Are you saying that their qualifications are irrelevant, or that you think their qualifications are sufficient to establish their credibility?
Bump

I'm saying they are some people.  With some qualifications.  We can all play this stupid game of who is qualified to hold an opinion on what until the end of time and it is a game much beloved by the alarmist fraternity.  Except of course when it goes the other way.  I don't see anyone whining about James Hansen making his graphic predictions of sea level rise doom when he is in fact an atmospheric scientist.  Wtf does he know about oceans and ice caps?  What qualifies him to hold an opinion?  All you're engaging in here is a blend of massive confirmation bias with the customary smear campaign.  I got tired of asking what qualifications the OP Guardian author holds which justify his casual dismissal of the opinions of some three hundred scientists.  Perhaps you'd like to comment on that?  Or perhaps not.

Meanwhile, since you appear to love this game, feel free to exercise your passion for it here.  Much more fun that the Guardian's cherry-picked handful and I'm sure you'll be able to manage a superior and more comprehensive smear job than John Abraham's feeble rushed effort.
Sure, Let's talk about Roger Bee. He is a some people. His qualifications are listed as (). Not a typo. He has no listed degrees, work experience, anything. He has a first and last name.

Does Roger Bee seem like a relevant expert to you? If so, why?

  • MikeS
  • Needs a Life
  • 1,327

  • 207

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #41
So, 299 left to analyze.

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 4,549

  • 868

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #42
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • 595

  • 157

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #43
Actually n/m, people like you that feel a constant stream of hyperbole and invective are fine discourse regularly engage in forms of gaslighting and misattribution. It's pathetic, actually.

You think you're curious.  What you are though is unhinged and I don't feel comfortable making it any worse than it already is.  So long and I hope things work out for you ok.

LOL. Nice of you to do your best to prove him right. Was that a purposeful troll, or are you actually incapable of refraining from hyperbole, invective, and gaslighting even in direct response to a post that explicitly describes your behavior that way?

  • 152

  • 3

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #44

Sure, Let's talk about Roger Bee. He is a some people. His qualifications are listed as (). Not a typo. He has no listed degrees, work experience, anything. He has a first and last name.

Does Roger Bee seem like a relevant expert to you? If so, why?

I've never even heard of Roger McBeeface so whether he is or is not a relevant expert I could not say.  I do absolutely agree though that it is terribad sloppy and there are others on the list in the same parlous state of no appended quals.  I emailed and told them to buck the fuck their dozy ideas up so hopefully they'll address these shortcomings in future revisions.  I dunno - give a denier a list compiler's job  ::)

  • 152

  • 3

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #45
I feel sorry for my granddaughter and the world in which she'll live.

Jon I apologise.  I have a different view on the science from the current mainstream and one that is not all that unusual.  You will be pleased to know that I am fully committed to environmental issues and have a personal carbon footprint which would make a tiny little bird rethink its profligate ways.  I am in fact dismayed that the real environmental issues which desperately need addressing are being ignored as a result of what I consider to be a completely unsupportable and politically motivated red carbon dioxide herring.
OK.  You do have a serious attitude problem.

Don't want to teach grandpa to suck eggs but have you found this to be a particularly successful gambit in life?

Quote
But your disagreement, and the disagreement of those 300, doesn't change reality.

You do know we're talking about computer models of planetary atmospheres here - don't you?  Does it ever cross your mind to wonder why so many object to them being described as reality?

  • 7,240

  • 1079

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #46
It is certainly dumb to call the map the terrain.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • JonF
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,011

  • 310

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #47
I feel sorry for my granddaughter and the world in which she'll live.

Jon I apologise.  I have a different view on the science from the current mainstream and one that is not all that unusual.  You will be pleased to know that I am fully committed to environmental issues and have a personal carbon footprint which would make a tiny little bird rethink its profligate ways.  I am in fact dismayed that the real environmental issues which desperately need addressing are being ignored as a result of what I consider to be a completely unsupportable and politically motivated red carbon dioxide herring.
OK.  You do have a serious attitude problem.

Don't want to teach grandpa to suck eggs but have you found this to be a particularly successful gambit in life?
Not a gambit, just an observation.

Quote
Quote
But your disagreement, and the disagreement of those 300, doesn't change reality.

You do know we're talking about computer models of planetary atmospheres here - don't you?  Does it ever cross your mind to wonder why so many object to them being described as reality?
First, we are talking about a lot more than computer models of planetary atmospheres.

Does it ever cross your mind to wonder why so very very few people who have a clue do not object to them being described as highly probable to be reality? Do you ever wonder why the checks we can run verify them? Do you ever wonder why so a many different models come to essentially the same conclusion?

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/:




Observed sea level rise since 1970 from tide gauge data (red) and satellite measurements (blue) compared to model projections for 1990-2010 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (grey band).  (Source: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009)


And plenty more.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • 152

  • 3

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #48

OK.  You do have a serious attitude problem.

Don't want to teach grandpa to suck eggs but have you found this to be a particularly successful gambit in life?
Not a gambit, just an observation.

You wouldn't think it's the defining 24 carat hall mark of an autocratic moron then?

Quote
First, we are talking about a lot more than computer models of planetary atmospheres.
  Oh heaps I'm sure.

Quote
Does it ever cross your mind to wonder why so very very few people who have a clue do not object to them being described as highly probable to be reality?

You are an absolute beauty Jon.  That's a completely incoherent sentence.  I could try and parse it and interpret what is in your mind but strongly suspect there is little to be gained by such an effort.

Quote
Do you ever wonder why the checks we can run verify them?

Try to keep up.  Google 'climate models running too hot'.  You will find a lot of professional disagreement on this issue.

Quote
Do you ever wonder why so a many different models come to essentially the same conclusion?

No.  Of all the things I wonder about that is definitely not one of them.  Nor do I wonder why the 'synoptic' gospels come to essentially the same conclusion.  And for the same reason.  They are not in fact independent.

Quote
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/:

Wtf is this?

Quote


Were you thinking that climate shaman Hansen has some sort of evidence there?  You do know that the model didn't predict the Pinatubo eruption and its consequences don't you?  Or perhaps you don't.  In your head you maybe think that the model peered into the future and for a brief moment parted the veils shrouding those things which had not yet come to pass and saw the Pinatubo eruption and all of its aerosol and gas composition?  What you posted then is a retrodiction isn't it.  In what way do you think that a retrodiction of cooling caused by a major volcanic eruption supports the validity of climate modelling?

Quote

Observed sea level rise since 1970 from tide gauge data (red) and satellite measurements (blue) compared to model projections for 1990-2010 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (grey band).  (Source: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009)

Lol please keep ss blog stuff for your cult meetings.

Quote
And plenty more.

A bit off topic now as your OP is really only about the nawsty denier list but it is your thread so by all means continue to present "plenty more" as it is indeed fascinating.
  • Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 06:50:19 PM by Cephus0

  • JonF
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,011

  • 310

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #49

OK.  You do have a serious attitude problem.

Don't want to teach grandpa to suck eggs but have you found this to be a particularly successful gambit in life?
Not a gambit, just an observation.

You wouldn't think it's the defining 24 carat hall mark of an autocratic moron then?
Nope, just an observation.

Quote
Quote
Does it ever cross your mind to wonder why so very very few people who have a clue do not object to them being described as highly probable to be reality?

You are an absolute beauty Jon.  That's a completely incoherent sentence.  I could try and parse it and interpret what is in your mind but strongly suspect there is little to be gained by such an effort.
Sorry you cannot read English.  It's intentionally a mirror of your claim. 

Quote
Quote
Do you ever wonder why the checks we can run verify them?

Try to keep up.  Google 'climate models running too hot'.  You will find a lot of professional disagreement on this issue.
If you have evidence, present it.

Quote
Quote
Do you ever wonder why so a many different models come to essentially the same conclusion?

No.  Of all the things I wonder about that is definitely not one of them.  Nor do I wonder why the 'synoptic' gospels come to essentially the same conclusion.  And for the same reason.  They are not in fact independent.
Demonstrate.

Quote
Quote
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/:

Wtf is this?
Not very bright, are you? Do you know what a reference to a web site followed by a colon is? It's an indication that what follows comes from that web site.  You should try posting some evidence and the source too, it's fun.

Quote
Quote



Were you thinking that climate shaman Hansen has some sort of evidence there?  You do know that the model didn't predict the Pinatubo eruption and its consequences don't you?  Or perhaps you don't.  In your head you maybe think that the model peered into the future and for a brief moment parted the veils shrouding those things which had not yet come to pass and saw the Pinatubo eruption and all of its aerosol and gas composition?  What you posted then is a retrodiction isn't it.  In what way do you think that a retrodiction of cooling caused by a major volcanic eruption supports the validity of climate modelling?
Yes, I know that it's not a prediction.  And it's obvious to the meanest intelligence why the models didn't predict Pinatubo and its effects. Do you understand why? Yes, I know it's a retrodiction. Which is not quite as good as a prediction but is still a strong indication of the accuracy of the model.

Quote
Quote

Observed sea level rise since 1970 from tide gauge data (red) and satellite measurements (blue) compared to model projections for 1990-2010 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (grey band).  (Source: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009)

Lol please keep ss blog stuff for your cult meetings.
It's not blog stuff. It's from the Copenhagen Diagnosis. [1] (You'll obviously never figure it out by yourself, so click on that little number for more information.  It's called a footnote.  You're welcome.)

It illustrates another way  of verifying the accuracy of the models.

Quote
Quote
And plenty more.

A bit off topic now as your OP is really only about the nawsty denier list but it is your thread so by all means continue to present "plenty more" as it is indeed fascinating.



Discussions morph and develop.  I'm just responding to you.  But I'll be glad to get back to the original topic.

Got any defense of the qualifications of the signatories?  Or you could respond to this:

Going to ask for the final time - exactly who the fuck are John Abraham and you to decide that "the vast majority" of those people with stated qualifications "are not scientists of any stripe"?
It's obvious to the meanest intelligence from inspecting the list, and further obvious because of your inability to mount any defense.

Quote
Quote
and lists of people that disagree are pointless without presenting the evidence why they disagree.

Breathtaking.  What you've done here is to invert the scientific method.  There's a guy called Kevin Trenberth who likes to do that too.  Won't go on but interested to know what you think about a concept called the null hypothesis?
Really?  The scientific method is based on lists of people that disagree without presenting the evidence why they disagree?  Who knew?

Looks like we're wasting a lot of research money, all we should be doing is making lists.

The line under the name indicates that it's a link.  If you click on it another browser tab will open to the Copenhagen Diagnosis web page, where you can verify their qualifications and findings.  Ain't technology grand?
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins