Top Scientists: "Warming Exagerated"

[boedicca]

Who Cares?

Algore was able to cash out by selling CurrentTV to Al Jazeera before the lid blew off the scam!

 

[bripat9643]

and this is why we get historic thousand year floods every few years on earth the last decade

Read up on random cause versus assignable cause. You statistical ignorance is showing.

You can't assign any cause to last week's flooding in Colorado, so the distinction is meaningless.

 

[idb]

and this is why we get historic thousand year floods every few years on earth the last decade

Read up on random cause versus assignable cause. You statistical ignorance is showing.

You can't assign any cause to last week's flooding in Colorado, so the distinction is meaningless.

Too much rain...maybe?

 

[Abraham3]

Read up on random cause versus assignable cause. You statistical ignorance is showing.

You can't assign any cause to last week's flooding in Colorado, so the distinction is meaningless.

Too much rain...maybe?

Wait a minute.... Wait just a minute... this fellow may be on to something ;-)

We will never be able to connect any specific event to increased temperatures. That's probably why we aren't trying. Increased temperatures increase the odds of extreme events. As temperatures rise, the incidence of extreme events will rise. What CAN be done is to connect increased temperatures to the fact that the 100 year event is now a 50 year event or a 20 year event and that the current 100 year event is a much more extreme event than it once was.

Why don't you deniers address THAT point rather than the red herring you've been chasing in circles all this while?

 

[Abraham3]

Who Cares?

Algore was able to cash out by selling CurrentTV to Al Jazeera before the lid blew off the scam!

"Who cares"? J'accuse ! ! ! You are a sock puppet! Hello SKOOKS!

Okay, what scam was that?

 

[bripat9643]

You can't assign any cause to last week's flooding in Colorado, so the distinction is meaningless.

Too much rain...maybe?

Wait a minute.... Wait just a minute... this fellow may be on to something ;-)

We will never be able to connect any specific event to increased temperatures. That's probably why we aren't trying.

Sorry to disabuse you of your delusions, but your fellow cult members PMS and Rocks in the Head did exactly that.

Increased temperatures increase the odds of extreme events. As temperatures rise, the incidence of extreme events will rise. What CAN be done is to connect increased temperatures to the fact that the 100 year event is now a 50 year event or a 20 year event and that the current 100 year event is a much more extreme event than it once was.

You can't make such a connection because there isn't the slightest bit of evidence that such is occurring.

Why don't you deniers address THAT point rather than the red herring you've been chasing in circles all this while?

For the same reason we don't go around trying to prove Big Foot doesn't exist. Perhaps when someone produces evidence that the weather is becoming more extreme, we will address it.

 

[bripat9643]

Who Cares?

Algore was able to cash out by selling CurrentTV to Al Jazeera before the lid blew off the scam!

"Who cares"? J'accuse ! ! ! You are a sock puppet! Hello SKOOKS!

Okay, what scam was that?

The scam that CurrentTV had an audience.

 

[loa]

Didnt read the OP for this thread didya?

FACTS dont matter but politics does?
Try again and tell us this story is not much.

Actually? I did read the opinion piece. I found it to be a piece of sensational writing at best; a piece of propaganda at worst.

My comment about Curry was directed toward those on this thread who are claiming her status as proof her words hold more weight than others. I am saying to give more weight to ONE opinion that agrees with your own, rather than absorb what all are saying, is confirmational bias. I used Congress as an example, because that's how I first heard of Curry - it seems the Republicans like to trot her out as a 'heavy' for the position of not doing anything.

Everyone is grasping at the lines in the article that say warming for the last 15 years is lower than modeled but ignoring the rest of what it says - mainly, there is almost complete agreement that 'we' are causing the warming and its time to think of ways to pull back from so much carbon release.

Finally, I don't understand why the article seems to think science should be set in stone or why a model needing adjustment gives a green light to discarding the whole thing. That's not how the process works.

K

 

[asterism]

You can't assign any cause to last week's flooding in Colorado, so the distinction is meaningless.

Too much rain...maybe?

Wait a minute.... Wait just a minute... this fellow may be on to something ;-)

We will never be able to connect any specific event to increased temperatures. That's probably why we aren't trying. Increased temperatures increase the odds of extreme events. As temperatures rise, the incidence of extreme events will rise. What CAN be done is to connect increased temperatures to the fact that the 100 year event is now a 50 year event or a 20 year event and that the current 100 year event is a much more extreme event than it once was.

Why don't you deniers address THAT point rather than the red herring you've been chasing in circles all this while?

That theory doesn't seem to be holding up with hurricanes. Where are they?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Too much rain...maybe?

Wait a minute.... Wait just a minute... this fellow may be on to something ;-)

We will never be able to connect any specific event to increased temperatures. That's probably why we aren't trying. Increased temperatures increase the odds of extreme events. As temperatures rise, the incidence of extreme events will rise. What CAN be done is to connect increased temperatures to the fact that the 100 year event is now a 50 year event or a 20 year event and that the current 100 year event is a much more extreme event than it once was.

Why don't you deniers address THAT point rather than the red herring you've been chasing in circles all this while?

That theory doesn't seem to be holding up with hurricanes. Where are they?

perhaps you missed the update

according to man made global warmists

a lack of hurricanes is also global warming

--LOL

 

[SSDD]

Too much rain...maybe?

Wait a minute.... Wait just a minute... this fellow may be on to something ;-)

We will never be able to connect any specific event to increased temperatures. That's probably why we aren't trying. Increased temperatures increase the odds of extreme events. As temperatures rise, the incidence of extreme events will rise. What CAN be done is to connect increased temperatures to the fact that the 100 year event is now a 50 year event or a 20 year event and that the current 100 year event is a much more extreme event than it once was.

Why don't you deniers address THAT point rather than the red herring you've been chasing in circles all this while?

That theory doesn't seem to be holding up with hurricanes. Where are they?

They pick cherries...don't point out the ones that they ignore. It makes them feel threatened and inferior.

 

[mamooth]

I find it telling that you dismiss Judith Curry just because she's an actual expert that disagrees with you, an obvious non-expert.

While you seem very impressed by credentials and argument-from-authority, remember that you're talking to the reason-based community, and we go by the science, period. Your authority figure just parrots nonsense now, so we correctly dismiss her. She says what you want to hear, so you believe and see no need to look further.

Is there any AGW skeptic you find credible?

Plenty of skeptics. But denialists tend to call those skeptics dirty warmer liberals, being as they talk like sane people. For example, I read the work of solar scientist Lief Svalgaard on WUWT. He's often defined by denialists as being a warmer in disguise, simply because he doesn't play along with the cult's sacred mantras about how all the data is forged by the global socialist conspiracy.

 

[flacaltenn]

and this is why we get historic thousand year floods every few years on earth the last decade

No.. (calmly and politely)...

If every township in America has 4 chances of some kind of 100 yr disaster ------

what are the odds that MANY OF THEM (100s of 1000s of townships) will experience a 100 year event this year??

Remember, mathematically, each of those 100 yr events for a particular location is a separate stochastic process.. But you knew that.. Just got caught up in the hysteria -- didn't ya?

The argument is that IF we see a rise of 2 or 4 degC -- you MIGHT start to see some increases in violent weather. But there is no pronouncement that we are to BLAME every weather event TODAY on the 0.5 deg that we've seen since 1950 or so..

 

[flacaltenn]

You can't assign any cause to last week's flooding in Colorado, so the distinction is meaningless.

Too much rain...maybe?

Wait a minute.... Wait just a minute... this fellow may be on to something ;-)

We will never be able to connect any specific event to increased temperatures. That's probably why we aren't trying. Increased temperatures increase the odds of extreme events. As temperatures rise, the incidence of extreme events will rise. What CAN be done is to connect increased temperatures to the fact that the 100 year event is now a 50 year event or a 20 year event and that the current 100 year event is a much more extreme event than it once was.

Why don't you deniers address THAT point rather than the red herring you've been chasing in circles all this while?

Maybe because we're more mathematically attuned and KNOW that a 100 yr event can occur in a 50 yr gap or a 200 yr gap.. And we don't panic if we see a Roulette wheel spin 3 #11s in 10 rounds.

To change the LONG TERM ODDS of an event --- you need to observe over time periods EXCEEDING the average. Not start shreiking like a 12 old sleep-over crowd when they see a spider.

 

[flacaltenn]

I find it telling that you dismiss Judith Curry just because she's an actual expert that disagrees with you, an obvious non-expert.

While you seem very impressed by credentials and argument-from-authority, remember that you're talking to the reason-based community, and we go by the science, period. Your authority figure just parrots nonsense now, so we correctly dismiss her. She says what you want to hear, so you believe and see no need to look further.

Is there any AGW skeptic you find credible?

Plenty of skeptics. But denialists tend to call those skeptics dirty warmer liberals, being as they talk like sane people. For example, I read the work of solar scientist Lief Svalgaard on WUWT. He's often defined by denialists as being a warmer in disguise, simply because he doesn't play along with the cult's sacred mantras about how all the data is forged by the global socialist conspiracy.

Good.. Then let's start a "Fantasy CLimate Change" League.. Draft starts Monday.

Hansen and Curry are off limits..

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow.. I'm really mad at myself for that lack of logic and reason..

It was a bad mistake to take Hansen and Curry out of the Fantasy League draft..
OF COURSE --- you are welcome to draft Hansen.. His season will end badly..
And I'd be an idiot not to draft Curry..

I'm gonna go flog myself for that idiotic suggestion...

 

[asterism]

I find it telling that you dismiss Judith Curry just because she's an actual expert that disagrees with you, an obvious non-expert.

While you seem very impressed by credentials and argument-from-authority, remember that you're talking to the reason-based community, and we go by the science, period. Your authority figure just parrots nonsense now, so we correctly dismiss her. She says what you want to hear, so you believe and see no need to look further.

Is there any AGW skeptic you find credible?

Plenty of skeptics. But denialists tend to call those skeptics dirty warmer liberals, being as they talk like sane people. For example, I read the work of solar scientist Lief Svalgaard on WUWT. He's often defined by denialists as being a warmer in disguise, simply because he doesn't play along with the cult's sacred mantras about how all the data is forged by the global socialist conspiracy.

So you don't find any skeptics credible?

Oh and about the science that you follow, why not Curry's scientific work?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As Ive said for years.....the AGW crowd has always been desperate to cling to the established narrative.

Rejecting mainstream science without cause is by far the more desperate modality.

So now it's "mainstream science" rather than "settled science?" You realize, of course, that "mainstream" is a term the demagogues and political propagandists use. It has no connection with actual science.

Say you as you use mainsream science as a source.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Headline: The deceased was not killed by three rounds of ammo, twas only two rounds and maybe the deceased expired before the second round hit them.

 

[bripat9643]

Rejecting mainstream science without cause is by far the more desperate modality.

So now it's "mainstream science" rather than "settled science?" You realize, of course, that "mainstream" is a term the demagogues and political propagandists use. It has no connection with actual science.

Say you as you use mainsream science as a source.

When have I ever used the term "mainstream science?" You, Abraham and PMS are the only ones I see using that term.