UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!

[Saigon]

SSDD -

don't you think that they are acknowledging that their models have been off by at least 60%

No, I don't.

The Norwegian study Katz is championing is comparing their model with that used by the IIPC, with the Norwegian prediction of 1.9C being significantly lower than 3.0C figure the IIPC used. How you get 60% out of that I have no idea.

Either way, the Norwegians are very clear that human acitivity is the key factor here, and I posted the section of text from Katz's link that says so.

 

[Saigon]

He is from Finland...but split all the hairs you like.

Is he?

It isn't a Finnish name, but of course names can be deceiving. But do provide proof, or it might look as if this is as unrealistic as your idea that research is funded according to the results!

 

[freedombecki]

Which models are those? Please list the qualifications of those who created them.

Considering the rate of failure, the qualifications of those who create them is really a moot point isn't it? Clearly either their qualifications, or the knowledge base required to model something as complex as our climate aren't enough.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds more evidence of the 'poor performance' of climate models
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper shows climate models underestimate cooling effect from clouds by a factor of 4
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds why weather & climate models are so often wrong
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Study Finds "Huge Discrepancy" Between Hard Data and Warming Models
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate models are unable to reproduce ENSO and other teleconnections
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate models exaggerate projected warming
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Settled science: New paper finds where winds come from
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Top 10 Reasons Why Climate Model Predictions are False
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Models lead to overly confident climate predictions
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The 76 trillion dollar computer game
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Antarctic sea ice reaches record high while IPCC models predicted the opposite
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate computer models exaggerate global warming and don't reproduce Pacific Ocean oscillations

That is quite a lot of research that goes against the global warming schtick masquerading as scientific fact.

 

[Koios]

Channel two in Reno, his name is Mike Alger if you really want to know, just ask, it's no secret!

Gotha. Sounds like a pretty good guy, having an undergrad degree in some technical, if unrealted subjects, from lil old Whitman in Southeast WA. Plus even came sorta close to a Rhodes Scolarship which is pretty good.

But you'll note that his Meteorology "Credentials" are of the sort that I mentioned when we veered onto this tanget, a coupla days back. It's a multiple choice test, along with an annual fee, so nice looking and chipper folks can be real live METEOROLOGISTS!!! with realtive ease, whether having some chemisty, communcations, theology or whatever background. The top qualification is looking good on TV.

And to suggest those folks are somehow better qualified than Climatologists at NOAA, etc, etc, is patently absurd.

Yeah, that's true. However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist. I actually took meteorology classes when I was getting my undergrad so am familiar with the science and it is quite exact, and difficult.

Absurd. They're both science disciplines, and the extent to which one is more qualified than another is purely experience / accomplishments based.

But okay, how many truly distinguished PhD Meterologists doing climate research are on the denialist list?

Do tell.

 

[Koios]

Which models are those? Please list the qualifications of those who created them.

Considering the rate of failure, the qualifications of those who create them is really a moot point isn't it? Clearly either their qualifications, or the knowledge base required to model something as complex as our climate aren't enough.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds more evidence of the 'poor performance' of climate models
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper shows climate models underestimate cooling effect from clouds by a factor of 4
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds why weather & climate models are so often wrong
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Study Finds "Huge Discrepancy" Between Hard Data and Warming Models
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate models are unable to reproduce ENSO and other teleconnections
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate models exaggerate projected warming
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Settled science: New paper finds where winds come from
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Top 10 Reasons Why Climate Model Predictions are False
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Models lead to overly confident climate predictions
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The 76 trillion dollar computer game
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Antarctic sea ice reaches record high while IPCC models predicted the opposite
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate computer models exaggerate global warming and don't reproduce Pacific Ocean oscillations

That is quite a lot of research that goes against the global warming schtick masquerading as scientific fact.

Not really. Aside from the usual cherry-picked bullshit that Denialists grab onto, while ignoring the bulk of the data that lead to the overwhelming worldwide concensus, they've added some bullshit about Prediction Models varying from HARD DATA!!!!

Ahhh!!! Run for your lives, kids!!! Predictions are varying from what in fact happens. Say it ain't so!!! (tip: predictions are merely that; and if any think the models are flawed, create a new model or offer ideas on correcting the current models ... go hog fucking wild ... not that I expect righty retard bloggers to grasp in any way how to create or correct computer models on climate.)

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

If your campaign is against bad science, it is surprising that not a single scientific organisation of any merit agrees with you.

It's rather odd, isn't it, that for you all science that disagrees with your positions is somehow "bad".

Ahhhh yes, the ever popular appeal to authority. Just think, not even 100 years ago those very same organisations said that Wegener was a crackpot. They were wrong about him too.

So you see dear child, authority doesn't equal accuracy.

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

We are so lucky we have you here, given you know so much more about science the US Physics Society.

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Climate Change

Perhaps you should call them and ask them to come to one of your lectures so that they can get up to speed?

No, the propaganda is incontrovertible...the science however is failing every time it is tested. The scientific method requires a scientist to make a hypothesis, formulate a experiment and test the theory.

If the test results, and observations in the real world, don't match the expected outcome the THEORY IS WRONG.

There has been no prediction made by the AGW cult that has ever come true. Not one. That is a level of fail not equalled by even the worst known charlatans.

You should be proud. You are the bvest at failing there has ever been.

 

[westwall]

Gotha. Sounds like a pretty good guy, having an undergrad degree in some technical, if unrealted subjects, from lil old Whitman in Southeast WA. Plus even came sorta close to a Rhodes Scolarship which is pretty good.

But you'll note that his Meteorology "Credentials" are of the sort that I mentioned when we veered onto this tanget, a coupla days back. It's a multiple choice test, along with an annual fee, so nice looking and chipper folks can be real live METEOROLOGISTS!!! with realtive ease, whether having some chemisty, communcations, theology or whatever background. The top qualification is looking good on TV.

And to suggest those folks are somehow better qualified than Climatologists at NOAA, etc, etc, is patently absurd.

Yeah, that's true. However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist. I actually took meteorology classes when I was getting my undergrad so am familiar with the science and it is quite exact, and difficult.

Absurd. They're both science disciplines, and the extent to which one is more qualified than another is purely experience / accomplishments based.

But okay, how many truly distinguished PhD Meterologists doing climate research are on the denialist list?

Do tell.

Untrue, as I stated earlier. I can teach ANY graduate level climatology class. No climatologist can teach even some of the second year classes in geology. The science is far, far over their heads.

 

[Koios]

Yeah, that's true. However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist. I actually took meteorology classes when I was getting my undergrad so am familiar with the science and it is quite exact, and difficult.

Absurd. They're both science disciplines, and the extent to which one is more qualified than another is purely experience / accomplishments based.

But okay, how many truly distinguished PhD Meterologists doing climate research are on the denialist list?

Do tell.

Untrue, as I stated earlier. I can teach ANY graduate level climatology class. No climatologist can teach even some of the second year classes in geology. The science is far, far over their heads.

Fine. No scientists on the fucking planet are more learned or distinguished than Meteorologists. Creme de la creme. Einstein, Newton, meet your superiors: METEOROLOGISTS!!!

That said, how many of the more learned among them are on the abject retard list? (aka MGW Denialist list)

Do tell.

 

[freedombecki]

Considering the rate of failure, the qualifications of those who create them is really a moot point isn't it? Clearly either their qualifications, or the knowledge base required to model something as complex as our climate aren't enough.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds more evidence of the 'poor performance' of climate models
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper shows climate models underestimate cooling effect from clouds by a factor of 4
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds why weather & climate models are so often wrong
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Study Finds "Huge Discrepancy" Between Hard Data and Warming Models
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate models are unable to reproduce ENSO and other teleconnections
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate models exaggerate projected warming
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Settled science: New paper finds where winds come from
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Top 10 Reasons Why Climate Model Predictions are False
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Models lead to overly confident climate predictions
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The 76 trillion dollar computer game
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Antarctic sea ice reaches record high while IPCC models predicted the opposite
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate computer models exaggerate global warming and don't reproduce Pacific Ocean oscillations

That is quite a lot of research that goes against the global warming schtick masquerading as scientific fact.

Not really. Aside from the usual cherry-picked bullshit that Denialists grab onto, while ignoring the bulk of the data that lead to the overwhelming worldwide concensus, they've added some bullshit about Prediction Models varying from HARD DATA!!!!

Ahhh!!! Run for your lives, kids!!! Predictions are varying from what in fact happens. Say it ain't so!!! (tip: predictions are merely that; and if any think the models are flawed, create a new model or offer ideas on correcting the current models ... go hog fucking wild ... not that I expect righty retard bloggers to grasp in any way how to create or correct computer models on climate.)

Sorry, sir, I read the #@*&!# emails and I know what those two Brits said to obfuscate known data to "show" that their research was valid when it wasn't so they could get money grants from people who don't have the starch to check up on the sobs.

You can't fool me. Those two had no business walking around with PhDs in basketweaving, much less in environmental science when they're so eager to collect fame and fortune and so eager to shove aside truth and integrity.

Science means digging for the truth and letting the evidence show it. They hid evidence to bend the truth to make themselves look like shooting stars rather than black holes enlarging themselves on worlds of loss.

The horn you're blowing has no reed and no mouthpiece. Got it?

 

[westwall]

Absurd. They're both science disciplines, and the extent to which one is more qualified than another is purely experience / accomplishments based.

But okay, how many truly distinguished PhD Meterologists doing climate research are on the denialist list?

Do tell.

Untrue, as I stated earlier. I can teach ANY graduate level climatology class. No climatologist can teach even some of the second year classes in geology. The science is far, far over their heads.

Fine. No scientists on the fucking planet are more learned or distinguished than Meteorologists. Creme de la creme. Einstein, Newton, meet your superiors: METEOROLOGISTS!!!

That said, how many of the more learned among them are on the abject retard list? (aka MGW Denialist list)

Do tell.

Ahhhh, poor baby having a tantrum? Here's the deal silly person. 74of 79 climatologists agreed with the meme that man is responsible for the warming. That equals that 97% mantra you clowns spout.

The rest of the scientific community is slowly but ever so slowly calling them on their bullshit. They have been entrenched for 30 years now, it takes time to reverse institutional corruption, but it is happening and as more evidence of their shenanigans is released that slowly moving tide will turn into an absolute torrent....better get ready to hang on 'cause when the dam bursts it's going to get ugly early for your high priests.

 

[Koios]

Untrue, as I stated earlier. I can teach ANY graduate level climatology class. No climatologist can teach even some of the second year classes in geology. The science is far, far over their heads.

Fine. No scientists on the fucking planet are more learned or distinguished than Meteorologists. Creme de la creme. Einstein, Newton, meet your superiors: METEOROLOGISTS!!!

That said, how many of the more learned among them are on the abject retard list? (aka MGW Denialist list)

Do tell.

Ahhhh, poor baby having a tantrum? Here's the deal silly person. 74of 79 climatologists agreed with the meme that man is responsible for the warming. That equals that 97% mantra you clowns spout.

The rest of the scientific community is slowly but ever so slowly calling them on their bullshit. They have been entrenched for 30 years now, it takes time to reverse institutional corruption, but it is happening and as more evidence of their shenanigans is released that slowly moving tide will turn into an absolute torrent....better get ready to hang on 'cause when the dam bursts it's going to get ugly early for your high priests.

Nah; just suffering sever and as yet unquenched curiosity.

So I'll ask a third time: how many top-tier Metorologists are among the MGW Denialists?

Do tell. I'm on fucking pins and needles.

 

[westwall]

Fine. No scientists on the fucking planet are more learned or distinguished than Meteorologists. Creme de la creme. Einstein, Newton, meet your superiors: METEOROLOGISTS!!!

That said, how many of the more learned among them are on the abject retard list? (aka MGW Denialist list)

Do tell.

Ahhhh, poor baby having a tantrum? Here's the deal silly person. 74of 79 climatologists agreed with the meme that man is responsible for the warming. That equals that 97% mantra you clowns spout.

The rest of the scientific community is slowly but ever so slowly calling them on their bullshit. They have been entrenched for 30 years now, it takes time to reverse institutional corruption, but it is happening and as more evidence of their shenanigans is released that slowly moving tide will turn into an absolute torrent....better get ready to hang on 'cause when the dam bursts it's going to get ugly early for your high priests.

Nah; just suffering sever and as yet unquenched curiosity.

So I'll ask a third time: how many top-tier Metorologists are among the MGW Denialists?

Do tell. I'm on fucking pins and needles.

I have no idea. Appeals to Authority are the last refuge of incompetant fools so I don't bother playing that game, nor do I engage in popularity contests. If you wish to engage in that sort of behavior I suggest you play with saigon, oltrakartrollingblunderfraud, and those of similar simple mindedness.

 

[Koios]

Ahhhh, poor baby having a tantrum? Here's the deal silly person. 74of 79 climatologists agreed with the meme that man is responsible for the warming. That equals that 97% mantra you clowns spout.

The rest of the scientific community is slowly but ever so slowly calling them on their bullshit. They have been entrenched for 30 years now, it takes time to reverse institutional corruption, but it is happening and as more evidence of their shenanigans is released that slowly moving tide will turn into an absolute torrent....better get ready to hang on 'cause when the dam bursts it's going to get ugly early for your high priests.

Nah; just suffering sever and as yet unquenched curiosity.

So I'll ask a third time: how many top-tier Metorologists are among the MGW Denialists?

Do tell. I'm on fucking pins and needles.

I have no idea. Appeals to Authority are the last refuge of incompetant fools so I don't bother playing that game, nor do I engage in popularity contests. If you wish to engage in that sort of behavior I suggest you play with saigon, oltrakartrollingblunderfraud, and those of similar simple mindedness.

That's a lot of words to say: I got nothing.

Yeah?

 

[westwall]

Nah; just suffering sever and as yet unquenched curiosity.

So I'll ask a third time: how many top-tier Metorologists are among the MGW Denialists?

Do tell. I'm on fucking pins and needles.

I have no idea. Appeals to Authority are the last refuge of incompetant fools so I don't bother playing that game, nor do I engage in popularity contests. If you wish to engage in that sort of behavior I suggest you play with saigon, oltrakartrollingblunderfraud, and those of similar simple mindedness.

That's a lot of words to say: I got nothing.

Yeah?

You indeed have nothing. Thank you for finally realising the obvious.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Saying that more than 50 major scientific bodies confirm that human acitivity plays a role in climate change is not an "appeal to authority".

It's a fact.

Saying that not a single major scientific body suggests that human acitivity does not play a role in climate is also a fact.

You are entirely free to ignore scientific opinion, and I totally agree that scientific opinion is not in itself a guarantee - but this idea you seem to have that your ignoring of scientific opinion somehow demonstrates how genuine your case is, is simply inexplicable.

Holding beliefs that have no scientific backing is not a virtue. Stop presenting it as one.

 

[asterism]

Westwall -

Saying that more than 50 major scientific bodies confirm that human acitivity plays a role in climate change is not an "appeal to authority".

It's a fact.

Saying that not a single major scientific body suggests that human acitivity does not play a role in climate is also a fact.

You are entirely free to ignore scientific opinion, and I totally agree that scientific opinion is not in itself a guarantee - but this idea you seem to have that your ignoring of scientific opinion somehow demonstrates how genuine your case is, is simply inexplicable.

Holding beliefs that have no scientific backing is not a virtue. Stop presenting it as one.

The two are not mutually exclusive. One can post a fact "Krugman is a Nobel Laureate in Economics and he agrees with more progressive taxation," while also using it as an appeal to authority in a way to say that since he's more qualified than your opponent, your opponent is wrong.

 

[Saigon]

Asterism -

I agree with you.

In agreeing with the position of groups like the American Physical Society I think we need to be careful to keep in mind that there is not cast iron guarantee that they are right, and that their positition alone does not make anyone else wrong.

However, given in this case we have 50+ major international scientific bodies on one side, and 0 on the other side of the debate; it is not appealing to authority to point out that scientific opinion is not evenly shared.

In any situation where one is backing what is very clearly a minority opinion - I think it is also best to admit that it is a minority opinion.

 

[ReallyMeow]

Untrue, as I stated earlier. I can teach ANY graduate level climatology class. No climatologist can teach even some of the second year classes in geology. The science is far, far over their heads.

You sound like a creationist that teaches biology. Oh I teach it, I just have no clue how it works and Im too busy being irrational and indignant to be bothered to learn. You know the science or you dont.

 

[Koios]

I have no idea. Appeals to Authority are the last refuge of incompetant fools so I don't bother playing that game, nor do I engage in popularity contests. If you wish to engage in that sort of behavior I suggest you play with saigon, oltrakartrollingblunderfraud, and those of similar simple mindedness.

That's a lot of words to say: I got nothing.

Yeah?

You indeed have nothing. Thank you for finally realising the obvious.

Nah; I have an overwhelming concensus of the world's experts on climate science telling us things that the world community accepts as the pretty fucking reliable insights, with exception of right-wing retards in the US, for the most part.

Then in an apparent attempt by you to remove all doubt of your retardation, you claim climatologists are dweebs and the real brains are meteorologists. So after a bit of rolling on the floor laughing my fucking ass off, I came back and said/queried, in essence, "Okie doke. Meteorologists are the cat's fucking pajamas among scientists; that said, which ones are MGW Denialists?"

And indeed, which is ironic since you brought them up, you've come up with shit. Nada. Zippity do dah.

Are you getting it, Professor?