Analysis shows climate modeling fraud.. Pal Review by Journals

[Billy_Bob]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Consensus climate scientists:

1. Think that precision is accuracy

2. Think that a root-mean-square error is an energetic perturbation on the model

3. Think that climate models can be used to validate climate models

4. Do not understand calibration at all

5. Do not know that calibration error propagates into subsequent calculations

6. Do not know the difference between statistical uncertainty and physical error

7. Think that “±” uncertainty means positive error offset

8. Think that fortuitously cancelling errors remove physical uncertainty

9. Think that projection anomalies are physically accurate (never demonstrated)

10. Think that projection variance about a mean is identical to propagated error

11. Think that a “±K” uncertainty is a physically real temperature

12. Think that a “±K” uncertainty bar means the climate model itself is oscillating violently between ice-house and hot-house climate states

Item 12 is especially indicative of the general incompetence of consensus climate scientists.

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Nothing is more infuriating than to have someone lecturing you on the characteristics of linear equations challenging you to disprove their finer points, when your whole position is predicated in a provable assertion that what is being modeled cannot be represented by linear equations in the first place."

The Earth is a NON-Linear chaotic system! now that's funny! The alarmists are trying to defend their positions and modeling by claiming the earth is a linear system...

 

[Billy_Bob]

And a warmer inadvertently posts up the modeling failure reality..

LOL... Nick Stokes posts up the failure and deviation from reality. and this is even a new one with the convergence point move forward (from 1996 to 2008) to remove the deviation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"The point to remember about climate models is that they cannot be used as proof of the CAGW hypothesis because the assumptions of the CAGW hypothesis are programmed into the models. They are merely another representation of the theory, they are not proof of anything."

Couldn't of said it better myself... because iv'e said it!

 

[Crick]

And a warmer inadvertently posts up the modeling failure reality..

LOL... Nick Stokes posts up the failure and deviation from reality. and this is even a new one with the convergence point move forward (from 1996 to 2008) to remove the deviation.

Where do you see a failure here Mr Atmospheric Physicist?

 

[westwall]

And a warmer inadvertently posts up the modeling failure reality..

LOL... Nick Stokes posts up the failure and deviation from reality. and this is even a new one with the convergence point move forward (from 1996 to 2008) to remove the deviation.

Where do you see a failure here Mr Atmospheric Physicist?

That dark squiggly line that shows the models to be horribly inaccurate would be my guess, but you people view the world through the eyes of the religious fanatic so I can't help you with that problem.

 

[Old Rocks]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Consensus climate scientists:

1. Think that precision is accuracy

2. Think that a root-mean-square error is an energetic perturbation on the model

3. Think that climate models can be used to validate climate models

4. Do not understand calibration at all

5. Do not know that calibration error propagates into subsequent calculations

6. Do not know the difference between statistical uncertainty and physical error

7. Think that “±” uncertainty means positive error offset

8. Think that fortuitously cancelling errors remove physical uncertainty

9. Think that projection anomalies are physically accurate (never demonstrated)

10. Think that projection variance about a mean is identical to propagated error

11. Think that a “±K” uncertainty is a physically real temperature

12. Think that a “±K” uncertainty bar means the climate model itself is oscillating violently between ice-house and hot-house climate states

Item 12 is especially indicative of the general incompetence of consensus climate scientists.

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

WUWT? ok LOL

 

[IanC]

This reminds me of when McIntyre pointed out that Steig's methodology and statistics were wrong on a cover article in Nature. They laughed and said what are you going to do about it? Write your own paper? So he did.

The peer review was onerous, and one reviewer demanded a specific addition. Once the paper was finally published, in a lower rated journal not Nature, Steig berated the addition that was forced on McIntyre as a condition for publishing. Unfortunately for Steig, he accidentally admitted that he was in fact the reviewer that demanded the addition.

Peer review is atrocious because of the double standard imposed on articles contrary to consensus climate science. Favourable papers slip through with obvious flaws while unfavourable ones are dissected with a fine tooth comb and usually rejected for non scientific reasons that are pathetic.

 

[SSDD]

None the less...400 papers have been published in 2017 supporting the skeptical position on climate alarm.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And a warmer inadvertently posts up the modeling failure reality..

LOL... Nick Stokes posts up the failure and deviation from reality. and this is even a new one with the convergence point move forward (from 1996 to 2008) to remove the deviation.

Where do you see a failure here Mr Atmospheric Physicist?

Let me guess... You fail to see the marked deviation from reality and observed empirical evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Consensus climate scientists:

1. Think that precision is accuracy

2. Think that a root-mean-square error is an energetic perturbation on the model

3. Think that climate models can be used to validate climate models

4. Do not understand calibration at all

5. Do not know that calibration error propagates into subsequent calculations

6. Do not know the difference between statistical uncertainty and physical error

7. Think that “±” uncertainty means positive error offset

8. Think that fortuitously cancelling errors remove physical uncertainty

9. Think that projection anomalies are physically accurate (never demonstrated)

10. Think that projection variance about a mean is identical to propagated error

11. Think that a “±K” uncertainty is a physically real temperature

12. Think that a “±K” uncertainty bar means the climate model itself is oscillating violently between ice-house and hot-house climate states

Item 12 is especially indicative of the general incompetence of consensus climate scientists.

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

WUWT? ok LOL

I guess you prefer HOTWHOPPER AND SKS to a real science site.. no surprise there... lies and distortions vs facts... LOL

 

[mamooth]

Summary:

A dumbass wrote a paper full of fundamental errors. It correctly got rejected, so he's claiming a conspiracy, and all the brainless conspiracy parrots here are bleating along.

When I was young and not so wise, I would often assume that if I disagreed with something I heard at a science presentation, the speaker must obviously be wrong. As I matured, and as I got embarrassed a few time for thinking that way, I realized that was a stupid way to think. Now I understand that if I disagree, it's much more likely that I'm the one who's wrong. I take it as a cue to educate myself. I definitely won't instantly start screaming the speaker is a liar if I don't understand a point.

Deniers? They lack that basic humility, hence they usually end up looking stupid. A sort of toxic narcissism defines deniers. They just can't accept the reality that they're not the most brilliant people in the room, and that the very smart people who have devoted their lives to the topic know more about it than someone who read some propaganda on a political blog.

The author of that paper? I could quickly tell by reading his piece that he's an engineer. His Engineer's Arrogance Syndrome came screaming off the page. He thinks the science is the same as his calibration lab, he can't understand why it's different, he has no interest in learning why, and thus he looks foolish.

These arrogant engineers all have something in common. They've never cracked open an atmospheric physics textbook. They're above learning from others, you know, given their self-proclaimed genius.

 

[mamooth]

 

[mamooth]

None the less...400 papers have been published in 2017 supporting the skeptical position on climate alarm.

Is this anything like your previous open fraud? You know, like when you posted a faked list of papers that supposedly predicted cooling, and I investigated and showed you proudly lied your ass off.

We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

Or perhaps are you counting pay-to-publish journals that don't require peer review? You know, the ones that will literally publish anything by anyone.

 

[SSDD]

None the less...400 papers have been published in 2017 supporting the skeptical position on climate alarm.

Is this anything like your previous open fraud? You know, like when you posted a faked list of papers that supposedly predicted cooling, and I investigated and showed you proudly lied your ass off.

We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

Or perhaps are you counting pay-to-publish journals that don't require peer review? You know, the ones that will literally publish anything by anyone.

Actually hairball, we only established that you were unable to read....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Consensus climate scientists:

1. Think that precision is accuracy

2. Think that a root-mean-square error is an energetic perturbation on the model

3. Think that climate models can be used to validate climate models

4. Do not understand calibration at all

5. Do not know that calibration error propagates into subsequent calculations

6. Do not know the difference between statistical uncertainty and physical error

7. Think that “±” uncertainty means positive error offset

8. Think that fortuitously cancelling errors remove physical uncertainty

9. Think that projection anomalies are physically accurate (never demonstrated)

10. Think that projection variance about a mean is identical to propagated error

11. Think that a “±K” uncertainty is a physically real temperature

12. Think that a “±K” uncertainty bar means the climate model itself is oscillating violently between ice-house and hot-house climate states

Item 12 is especially indicative of the general incompetence of consensus climate scientists.

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

The author is a lying liar tryong to fool people into not noticing his own incompetence. His articles are rejected by journals not because his findings are unwelcome, but because his articles use poor methods and his analysis is bad analysis. Scientific journals do not reject articles for such silly reasons. They respond with analysis of the articles, often from several sources, and explain why the methods are poor. You and your denier bloggers are such suckers.

And you would not know if the author is "right on the money, or if his math is "solid". You know nothing about climate acience or the mathematics involved in climate models. You are an even bigger fraud than the author.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Consensus climate scientists:

1. Think that precision is accuracy

2. Think that a root-mean-square error is an energetic perturbation on the model

3. Think that climate models can be used to validate climate models

4. Do not understand calibration at all

5. Do not know that calibration error propagates into subsequent calculations

6. Do not know the difference between statistical uncertainty and physical error

7. Think that “±” uncertainty means positive error offset

8. Think that fortuitously cancelling errors remove physical uncertainty

9. Think that projection anomalies are physically accurate (never demonstrated)

10. Think that projection variance about a mean is identical to propagated error

11. Think that a “±K” uncertainty is a physically real temperature

12. Think that a “±K” uncertainty bar means the climate model itself is oscillating violently between ice-house and hot-house climate states

Item 12 is especially indicative of the general incompetence of consensus climate scientists.

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

The author is a lying liar tryong to fool people into not noticing his own incompetence. His articles are rejected by journals not because his findings are unwelcome, but because his articles use poor methods and his analysis is bad analysis. Scientific journals do not reject articles for such silly reasons. They respond with analysis of the articles, often from several sources, and explain why the methods are poor. You and your denier bloggers are such suckers.

And you would not know if the author is "right on the money, or if his math is "solid". You know nothing about climate acience or the mathematics involved in climate models. You are an even bigger fraud than the author.

If the inputs to a function are uncertain, then the output of the function will at best be equally uncertain.
In reality, every time you perform an operation on uncertain data, you increase the uncertainty.

Guess what...The author is right and you are clueless... 6 different journals equivocated his correct position but refused to publish because their "readers would not approve" ... I thought we were dealing in science not feelings..?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Consensus climate scientists:

1. Think that precision is accuracy

2. Think that a root-mean-square error is an energetic perturbation on the model

3. Think that climate models can be used to validate climate models

4. Do not understand calibration at all

5. Do not know that calibration error propagates into subsequent calculations

6. Do not know the difference between statistical uncertainty and physical error

7. Think that “±” uncertainty means positive error offset

8. Think that fortuitously cancelling errors remove physical uncertainty

9. Think that projection anomalies are physically accurate (never demonstrated)

10. Think that projection variance about a mean is identical to propagated error

11. Think that a “±K” uncertainty is a physically real temperature

12. Think that a “±K” uncertainty bar means the climate model itself is oscillating violently between ice-house and hot-house climate states

Item 12 is especially indicative of the general incompetence of consensus climate scientists.

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

The author is a lying liar tryong to fool people into not noticing his own incompetence. His articles are rejected by journals not because his findings are unwelcome, but because his articles use poor methods and his analysis is bad analysis. Scientific journals do not reject articles for such silly reasons. They respond with analysis of the articles, often from several sources, and explain why the methods are poor. You and your denier bloggers are such suckers.

And you would not know if the author is "right on the money, or if his math is "solid". You know nothing about climate acience or the mathematics involved in climate models. You are an even bigger fraud than the author.

If the inputs to a function are uncertain, then the output of the function will at best be equally uncertain.
In reality, every time you perform an operation on uncertain data, you increase the uncertainty.

Guess what...The author is right and you are clueless... 6 different journals equivocated his correct position but refused to publish because their "readers would not approve" ... I thought we were dealing in science not feelings..

Ah yes...the author is right, you are sure of that, and all the others are icompetent or lying. And you understand all his math, and everyone else's climate model math, too.

Seems legit, if you don't think about it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Consensus climate scientists:

1. Think that precision is accuracy

2. Think that a root-mean-square error is an energetic perturbation on the model

3. Think that climate models can be used to validate climate models

4. Do not understand calibration at all

5. Do not know that calibration error propagates into subsequent calculations

6. Do not know the difference between statistical uncertainty and physical error

7. Think that “±” uncertainty means positive error offset

8. Think that fortuitously cancelling errors remove physical uncertainty

9. Think that projection anomalies are physically accurate (never demonstrated)

10. Think that projection variance about a mean is identical to propagated error

11. Think that a “±K” uncertainty is a physically real temperature

12. Think that a “±K” uncertainty bar means the climate model itself is oscillating violently between ice-house and hot-house climate states

Item 12 is especially indicative of the general incompetence of consensus climate scientists.

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

The author is a lying liar tryong to fool people into not noticing his own incompetence. His articles are rejected by journals not because his findings are unwelcome, but because his articles use poor methods and his analysis is bad analysis. Scientific journals do not reject articles for such silly reasons. They respond with analysis of the articles, often from several sources, and explain why the methods are poor. You and your denier bloggers are such suckers.

And you would not know if the author is "right on the money, or if his math is "solid". You know nothing about climate acience or the mathematics involved in climate models. You are an even bigger fraud than the author.

If the inputs to a function are uncertain, then the output of the function will at best be equally uncertain.
In reality, every time you perform an operation on uncertain data, you increase the uncertainty.

Guess what...The author is right and you are clueless... 6 different journals equivocated his correct position but refused to publish because their "readers would not approve" ... I thought we were dealing in science not feelings..

Ah yes...the author is right, you are sure of that, and all the others are icompetent or lying. And you understand all his math, and everyone else's climate model math, too.

Seems legit, if you don't think about it.

WOW...

Not once have you even addressed the BASIC CONCEPTS of physical error or range (margin) of error. One is quantifiable the other is determined on the error found on each iteration (cycle) of the program.

If you have a program that has multiple stacks of programs (each grid cell is a program of itself) and each program has a physical error, when those programs interact the range of possible error becomes n x n1 x n2 x n3 FOR EACH CYCLE. This is why the spaghetti graphs of the alarmist predictions ALWAYS explode into unrealistic ranges and enters a physical systems range that can never be obtained.. IE; Model FAILURE

The Good Dr is correct in his paper... SO sad that you can not address the real facts of the climate alarmists pseudo-science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Consensus climate scientists:

1. Think that precision is accuracy

2. Think that a root-mean-square error is an energetic perturbation on the model

3. Think that climate models can be used to validate climate models

4. Do not understand calibration at all

5. Do not know that calibration error propagates into subsequent calculations

6. Do not know the difference between statistical uncertainty and physical error

7. Think that “±” uncertainty means positive error offset

8. Think that fortuitously cancelling errors remove physical uncertainty

9. Think that projection anomalies are physically accurate (never demonstrated)

10. Think that projection variance about a mean is identical to propagated error

11. Think that a “±K” uncertainty is a physically real temperature

12. Think that a “±K” uncertainty bar means the climate model itself is oscillating violently between ice-house and hot-house climate states

Item 12 is especially indicative of the general incompetence of consensus climate scientists.

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

The author is a lying liar tryong to fool people into not noticing his own incompetence. His articles are rejected by journals not because his findings are unwelcome, but because his articles use poor methods and his analysis is bad analysis. Scientific journals do not reject articles for such silly reasons. They respond with analysis of the articles, often from several sources, and explain why the methods are poor. You and your denier bloggers are such suckers.

And you would not know if the author is "right on the money, or if his math is "solid". You know nothing about climate acience or the mathematics involved in climate models. You are an even bigger fraud than the author.

If the inputs to a function are uncertain, then the output of the function will at best be equally uncertain.
In reality, every time you perform an operation on uncertain data, you increase the uncertainty.

Guess what...The author is right and you are clueless... 6 different journals equivocated his correct position but refused to publish because their "readers would not approve" ... I thought we were dealing in science not feelings..

Ah yes...the author is right, you are sure of that, and all the others are icompetent or lying. And you understand all his math, and everyone else's climate model math, too.

Seems legit, if you don't think about it.

WOW...

Not once have you even addressed the BASIC CONCEPTS of physical error or range (margin) of error. One is quantifiable the other is determined on the error found on each iteration (cycle) of the program.

If you have a program that has multiple stacks of programs (each grid cell is a program of itself) and each program has a physical error, when those programs interact the range of possible error becomes n x n1 x n2 x n3 FOR EACH CYCLE. This is why the spaghetti graphs of the alarmist predictions ALWAYS explode into unrealistic ranges and enters a physical systems range that can never be obtained.. IE; Model FAILURE

The Good Dr is correct in his paper... SO sad that you can not address the real facts of the climate alarmists pseudo-science.

Correct, I will not be hashing out the math of models with a know-nothing internet hack. If you want to debate the math, then get an education , publish papers, and go speak at universities. But that will never happen.

Guess who has addressed the math? The global scientific community, and those whondedicate their lives to these models. You know, the people you are calling liars and incompetent. Imagine the nerve...an uneducated slob who knows less than nothing about any of this, calling them liars and incompetent. You deniers are a joke. The only reason you don't feel like everyone is laughing at you is because you hide on the internet and insulate yourself with fellow idiot deniers.