AN Open Challenge for my AGW Friends....

[Billy_Bob]

Recently I have had a lot of quiet time in hospitals and my colleague's sent me data from different climate models to review after they performed Empirical Verification tests. None of the models we evaluated passed the test. They all over estimated warming by a factor of 10 and some were as high as 20.

Each of the models failed to include UHI (Urban Heat Island) and other natural variation forcings, both positive and negative.

In several threads, I have asked multiple times how the current modeling had ruled out natural forcings and land use changes. No one seems to be able to answer this question. Many of the models, currently in use, we were denied access to. I found this very concerning as open and transparent science is required for replication and verification, the very basis of the scientific method.

My challenge is this: Bring me the names of models and how they included natural forcings and land use changes in them. Feel free to post links to these models/modelers and their sources. Then explain how they ruled out these natural factors and land use changes which affect the global average of temperature.

Do not appeal to authority. I want facts and data only.

 

[Anomalism]

Do not appeal to authority.

Don't mention the fact that my views are contrary to every scientific institution on the planet.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Don't mention the fact that my views are contrary to every scientific institution on the planet.

And there you have it.... An appeal to authority devoid of provable facts.

 

[Anomalism]

And there you have it.... An appeal to authority devoid of provable facts.

Well it's a very inconvenient reality for you, is it not? I think it's very relevant and worth mentioning that every last scientific institution on the planet Earth disagrees with your viewpoints.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well it's a very inconvenient reality for you, is it not? I think it's very relevant and worth mentioning that every last scientific institution on the planet Earth disagrees with your viewpoints.

I have already explained how this is a logic fallacy argument which fails. As you already explained in another thread, you are not a scientist, only a propogandist for the authorities you cite. My reply below to this confession still stands.

"You are driving a political narrative for control... Thanks for admitting this.. This isn't a scientific discussion as your having a political one devoid of science."

Your appeal to authority, devoid of facts, fails.

 

[Anomalism]

I have already explained how this is a logic fallacy argument which fails. As you already explained in another thread, you are not a scientist, only a propogandist for the authorities you cite. My reply below to this confession still stands.

"You are driving a political narrative for control... Thanks for admitting this.. This isn't a scientific discussion as your having a political one devoid of science."

Your appeal to authority, devoid of facts, fails.

Okay. I just wanted to start the thread out by making every reader contemplate the fact that every scientific institution on Earth disagrees with you. Have fun with your thread.

 

[ding]

Okay. I just wanted to start the thread out by making every reader contemplate the fact that every scientific institution on Earth disagrees with you. Have fun with your thread.

The radiative forcing of CO2 is weak. It's just physics.

 

[Crick]

Recently I have had a lot of quiet time in hospitals and my colleague's sent me data from different climate models to review after they performed Empirical Verification tests. None of the models we evaluated passed the test. They all over estimated warming by a factor of 10 and some were as high as 20. Each of the models failed to include UHI (Urban Heat Island) and other natural variation forcings, both positive and negative. In several threads, I have asked multiple times how the current modeling had ruled out natural forcings and land use changes. No one seems to be able to answer this question. Many of the models, currently in use, we were denied access to. I found this very concerning as open and transparent science is required for replication and verification, the very basis of the scientific method.
My challenge is this: Bring me the names of models and how they included natural forcings and land use changes in them. Feel free to post links to these models/modelers and their sources. Then explain how they ruled out these natural factors and land use changes which affect the global average of temperature. Do not appeal to authority. I want facts and data only.

I've got a friend with a small farm that's in need of fertilizer. If you don't mind...

I don't know about anyone else here, but I am ABSOLUTELY convinced that after "quiet time in hospitals" the rest of this post is completely manufactured bullshit. And I suspect you weren't in hospital for any physiological reasons.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have already explained how this is a logic fallacy argument which fails. As you already explained in another thread, you are not a scientist, only a propogandist for the authorities you cite. My reply below to this confession still stands.

"You are driving a political narrative for control... Thanks for admitting this.. This isn't a scientific discussion as your having a political one devoid of science."

Your appeal to authority, devoid of facts, fails.

Got it. You want to ignore the facts accepted by every major scientific community in the world in favor of anonymous people on the internet who believe listening to 2 hours of Glen Beck is considered "doing their own research" Now, that's funny, I don't care who you are.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Got it. You want to ignore the facts accepted by every major scientific community in the world in favor of anonymous people on the internet who believe listening to 2 hours of Glen Beck is considered "doing their own research" Now, that's funny, I don't care who you are.

What "FACTS" are you referring to? The majority was wrong when they imprisoned Gallello for stating that the earth revolved around the sun. He had facts to the contrary of the "consensus". Over 60,000 scientists disagree with the "consensus" today. Are they deniers too or do they have facts which persuade them to come to a different conclusion?

Appeals to authority are fallacy arguments. Please provide facts we can discuss.

 

[BULLDOG]

What "FACTS" are you referring to? The majority was wrong when they imprisoned Gallello for stating that the earth revolved around the sun. He had facts to the contrary of the "consensus". Over 60,000 scientists disagree with the "consensus" today. Are they deniers too or do they have facts which persuade them to come to a different conclusion?

Appeals to authority are fallacy arguments. Please provide facts we can discuss.

He said as he appealed to the authority of his imagined 60,000. I'm not a scientist, and neither are you. Come back when you realize quoting Glen Beck or Alex Jones is not considered "doing your own research"

 

[Billy_Bob]

He said as he appealed to the authority of his imagined 60,000. I'm not a scientist, and neither are you. Come back when you realize quoting Glen Beck or Alex Jones is not considered "doing your own research"

I am an atmospheric physicist. So once again you are ignorant of the facts. You will never get away from your consensus belief. That is why I call it a cult, you believe without facts to support you.

 

[BULLDOG]

I am an atmospheric physicist. So once again you are ignorant of the facts. You will never get away from your consensus belief. That is why I call it a cult, you believe without facts to support you.

The fact is that every scientific community in the world says you are full of shit. I have to accept their expertice on the subject.

 

[Billy_Bob]

He said as he appealed to the authority of his imagined 60,000. I'm not a scientist, and neither are you. Come back when you realize quoting Glen Beck or Alex Jones is not considered "doing your own research"

You don't have a clue, do you? Come back when you have facts to share.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The fact is that every scientific community in the world says you are full of shit. I have to accept their expertice on the subject.

All you have are appeals to authority even in the face of major dissent by others. Do you even understand why there is dissent?

The models fail Empirical Evaluation without exception to date. The overestimation of warming is so big that it renders these models useless. Yet you believe... Other scientists, including myself are asking very pointed questions as to why these models fail without exception. We are not getting good answers. That is why there is major dissention to the CAGW hypothesis.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hopefully we are done with the appeals to authority. Now let's see some facts and models to discuss.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hopefully we are done with the appeals to authority. Now let's see some facts and models to discuss.

So present documentation for research you have personally conducted. Be specific about the procedures you employed.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So present documentation for research you have personally conducted. Be specific about the procedures you employed.

Feel free to bring one to discuss.

Dr Roy Spencer did 73 of the models. They were primed will all the same data then allowed to run from 1979 and checked against empirical data. They all failed. To date, that failure remains a problem with climate modeling. Why do they persist in not fixing the models?

 

[Crick]

All you have are appeals to authority even in the face of major dissent by others. Do you even understand why there is dissent?

The models fail Empirical Evaluation without exception to date. The overestimation of warming is so big that it renders these models useless. Yet you believe... Other scientists, including myself are asking very pointed questions as to why these models fail without exception. We are not getting good answers. That is why there is major dissention to the CAGW hypothesis.

As you have been told on multiple occasions, with multiple supporting references linked, appeals to REAL authorities on the subject(s) of their expertise ARE VALID. The only reason you bring it up because, as several posters have pointed out, the real experts on this topic all say you are filled to your very tippy-top with SHIT.

 

[Crick]

I have already explained how this is a logic fallacy argument which fails. As you already explained in another thread, you are not a scientist, only a propogandist for the authorities you cite. My reply below to this confession still stands.

"You are driving a political narrative for control... Thanks for admitting this.. This isn't a scientific discussion as your having a political one devoid of science."

Your appeal to authority, devoid of facts, fails.

Every textbook you ever opened was an appeal to authority. Do they all fail? Your instructors. Your adviser. All fail?