Epic Climate Science Fail....

[SSDD]

Only a total f'ing idiot can look at this graph and continue to claim that the climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

How many of you total f'ing idiots (and you know who you are) want to try and defend the claim that climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

In real science, you make some predictions based on a hypothesis. Then you observe and to see if your predictions are accurate...and more importantly....how accurate they are. If they are not accurate, you scrap your failed hypothesis and go back to the drawing board.

Clearly, climate science is not real science. The hypothesis as depicted in climate models has failed spectacularly. What is the response by climate science? Do they acknowledge that their hypothesis that CO2 is driving the climate has failed and go back to the drawing board to see if they can begin to figure out what actually does drive the climate? Hell no. Not the high priests of the church of pseudoscience. They go about trying to form rational explanations for the abject failure of their hypothesis and attempt to explain where all the unobserved heat went. Maybe the dog ate the warming.

So step on up warmers and defend the abject failure that is the pseudoscience of modelling the climate.

Here is an excellent video discussing the role of CO2 in the global climate. It is rather long and technical.

WARNING: WARMERS WILL WANT TO AVOID THE LAST 10 MINUTES AT ALL COSTS.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But it feels like the satellites are wrong, they missed the "Wider and wider swings with an overall warming trend" so the Warmer corrected the obviously flawed readings

 

[SSDD]

But it feels like the satellites are wrong, they missed the "Wider and wider swings with an overall warming trend" so the Warmer corrected the obviously flawed readings

And they (satellites) aren't able to detect all of that heat that sunk to the cold, dark depths of the ocean. The good thing about having a hypothesis based on bad physics is that you can freely offer up explanations for its abject failure that are also based on bad physics; like heat sinking to the bottom of the oceans.

 

[IanC]

I kinda like the original 'linear trend only' graph because it makes such a stark comparison with little clutter-

 

[IanC]

Only a total f'ing idiot can look at this graph and continue to claim that the climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

How many of you total f'ing idiots (and you know who you are) want to try and defend the claim that climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

In real science, you make some predictions based on a hypothesis. Then you observe and to see if your predictions are accurate...and more importantly....how accurate they are. If they are not accurate, you scrap your failed hypothesis and go back to the drawing board.

Clearly, climate science is not real science. The hypothesis as depicted in climate models has failed spectacularly. What is the response by climate science? Do they acknowledge that their hypothesis that CO2 is driving the climate and go back to the drawing board to see if they can begin to figure out what actually does drive the climate? Hell no. Not the high priests of the church of pseudoscience. They go about trying to form rational explanations for the abject failure of their hypothesis and attempt to explain where all the unobserved heat went. Maybe the dog ate the warming.

So step on up warmers and defend the abject failure that is the pseudoscience of modelling the climate.

Here is an excellent video discussing the role of CO2 in the global climate. It is rather long and technical.

WARNING: WARMERS WILL WANT TO AVOID THE LAST 10 MINUTES AT ALL COSTS.

Presentation Prof. Murray Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013 - YouTube

long video but even if you arent a sceptic you cannot help but learn some interesting background on proxy analysis.

 

[skookerasbil]

SSDD......more brilliance dude!!! And Im laughing.

Indeed, its another real bad week for the climate k00ks. Event he New York Times, of all places, had an article yesterday about "the global warming plateau".

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0


You talk about crash and burn. Ive been telling peeps for well over a decade that this global warming stuff was nothing more than a fad. These crusaders have been to totally duped, they are like alcoholics to a bottle......just cant give up the established narrative no matter what is going on in the real world.


This whole warmist community.......they are like the idiots who go to WWF thinking the shit is real. Just because the science frauds attach "computer models" to everything they do, they buy it hook, line and stinker. These climate crusaders would buy a bag of dog shit for $2,000 a pop if it were packeaged up just right!!


Indeed.....it is IMPOSSIBLE to use comp[uter models to predict future climate change.....they can only be used to better understand the climate world.

The models are wrong | Behind The Black




ANd by the way......this whole "extreme weather" narrative is total BS.......complete fabrication to try and stir the masses. Here is a chronology of extreme weather going waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back............to 580 AD

Chronology of Extreme Weather

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[SSDD]

Aren't there any passengers from the first class section of the AGW crazy train willing to defend their failed hypothesis?

What do they say in law? Silence implies consent. Guess you know the end is near but lack the face to admit it.

 

[SSDD]

I kinda like the original 'linear trend only' graph because it makes such a stark comparison with little clutter-

Either way, it is pretty clear that the hypotheis (which is the basis for the climate models) is a failure. It really is time to dump the hoaxters and get the field of climate science back on the scientific method track and try to actually figure out the climate if it can be proven that finding out is worth the money it would cost.

 

[skookerasbil]

Just amazing how the worm has turned in this forum over the last 4 years. The sceptics now DOMINATE this place, and for good reason too. More amazing is that the climate crusaders post up the same stale crap over, and over, and over and over. Long time members in here post up stuff that is as good as a relics from a former era. Fascinating.

 

[flacaltenn]

A couple of those models are doing pretty good.. Vegas odds say those are the ones that don't really on CO2 as the principle driver..

 

[mamooth]

Only a total f'ing idiot can look at this graph and continue to claim that the climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

Given his history of creative data manipulation, only a total 'effin idiot trusts statistics from Roy Spencer. But then, look at the usual suspects posting on this thread.

WARNING: WARMERS WILL WANT TO AVOID THE LAST 10 MINUTES AT ALL COSTS.

Why? It's just Murray Salby's debunked nonsense about how temperature supposedly drives CO2. No one outside crankland takes it seriously, given how it contradicts the facts. Did you really think we hadn't seen Salby's nonsense before? We're quite familiar with your stable of quacks, and how awful their logic and science is. When you're good at science and logic, their quackery is obvious. When you're not so good, you get fooled.

Seriously, y'all need to stop taking yourselves so seriously. To those outside of your fringe political cult, you look quite ridiculous when do another victory dance because you fell for yet another scam.

 

[SSDD]

Given his history of creative data manipulation, only a total 'effin idiot trusts statistics from Roy Spencer. But then, look at the usual suspects posting on this thread.

What a complete and unmitigated loser you are. He listed each and every one of the models by name. Do you believe the graphs plotted are anything different from the actual output of the models? How pathetic must you be to believe that. Mosey out on the internet and collect the comments from the outraged modellers who are stating that roy spencer has altered the output of their models for his own neferious purposes.

Maybe at some point, the fact that there are no outraged modellers claiming that he has altered thier work for the purpose of his graph will sink in and maybe, just maybe you will come to your senses and grasp the glaring fact that the hypothesis has completely, spectacularly, and sensationally failed.

Why? It's just Murray Salby's debunked nonsense about how temperature supposedly drives CO2. No one outside crankland takes it seriously, given how it contradicts the facts.

The fact, and every ice core supports it, is that CO2 follows temperature around like a little lost puppy.

But hey, thanks for dropping by. It is good to hear from the first class section of the crazy train....now please move along before you drool on the carpet.

 

[flacaltenn]

Only a total f'ing idiot can look at this graph and continue to claim that the climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

Given his history of creative data manipulation, only a total 'effin idiot trusts statistics from Roy Spencer. But then, look at the usual suspects posting on this thread.

WARNING: WARMERS WILL WANT TO AVOID THE LAST 10 MINUTES AT ALL COSTS.

Why? It's just Murray Salby's debunked nonsense about how temperature supposedly drives CO2. No one outside crankland takes it seriously, given how it contradicts the facts. Did you really think we hadn't seen Salby's nonsense before? We're quite familiar with your stable of quacks, and how awful their logic and science is. When you're good at science and logic, their quackery is obvious. When you're not so good, you get fooled.

Seriously, y'all need to stop taking yourselves so seriously. To those outside of your fringe political cult, you look quite ridiculous when do another victory dance because you fell for yet another scam.

Hey genius.. If warming DOESN'T drive CO2, then all of your hysterical feedback amplifications that you need to alarm Granny aren't real... You wanna modify those comments? Or just dodge.

 

[SSDD]

Hey genius.. If warming DOESN'T drive CO2, then all of your hysterical feedback amplifications that you need to alarm Granny aren't real... You wanna modify those comments? Or just dodge.

What do you want to bet that she has no idea what you just said?

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey genius.. If warming DOESN'T drive CO2, then all of your hysterical feedback amplifications that you need to alarm Granny aren't real... You wanna modify those comments? Or just dodge.

What do you want to bet that she has no idea what you just said?

There's always hope.. I've had enough disappointments this week..

 

[idb]

Only a total f'ing idiot can look at this graph and continue to claim that the climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

How many of you total f'ing idiots (and you know who you are) want to try and defend the claim that climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

In real science, you make some predictions based on a hypothesis. Then you observe and to see if your predictions are accurate...and more importantly....how accurate they are. If they are not accurate, you scrap your failed hypothesis and go back to the drawing board.

Clearly, climate science is not real science. The hypothesis as depicted in climate models has failed spectacularly. What is the response by climate science? Do they acknowledge that their hypothesis that CO2 is driving the climate has failed and go back to the drawing board to see if they can begin to figure out what actually does drive the climate? Hell no. Not the high priests of the church of pseudoscience. They go about trying to form rational explanations for the abject failure of their hypothesis and attempt to explain where all the unobserved heat went. Maybe the dog ate the warming.

So step on up warmers and defend the abject failure that is the pseudoscience of modelling the climate.

Here is an excellent video discussing the role of CO2 in the global climate. It is rather long and technical.

WARNING: WARMERS WILL WANT TO AVOID THE LAST 10 MINUTES AT ALL COSTS.

Presentation Prof. Murray Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013 - YouTube

I freely admit I'm not a climate scientist so I would appreciate a link to the graph source to help me.
Thanks.

 

[RKMBrown]

Only a total f'ing idiot can look at this graph and continue to claim that the climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

How many of you total f'ing idiots (and you know who you are) want to try and defend the claim that climate models are not inconsistent with observations.

In real science, you make some predictions based on a hypothesis. Then you observe and to see if your predictions are accurate...and more importantly....how accurate they are. If they are not accurate, you scrap your failed hypothesis and go back to the drawing board.

Clearly, climate science is not real science. The hypothesis as depicted in climate models has failed spectacularly. What is the response by climate science? Do they acknowledge that their hypothesis that CO2 is driving the climate has failed and go back to the drawing board to see if they can begin to figure out what actually does drive the climate? Hell no. Not the high priests of the church of pseudoscience. They go about trying to form rational explanations for the abject failure of their hypothesis and attempt to explain where all the unobserved heat went. Maybe the dog ate the warming.

So step on up warmers and defend the abject failure that is the pseudoscience of modelling the climate.

Here is an excellent video discussing the role of CO2 in the global climate. It is rather long and technical.

WARNING: WARMERS WILL WANT TO AVOID THE LAST 10 MINUTES AT ALL COSTS.

Presentation Prof. Murray Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013 - YouTube

I freely admit I'm not a climate scientist so I would appreciate a link to the graph source to help me.
Thanks.

Heh.. I don't care what side of the aisle your on. That was funny. Asking for proof... ROFL

 

[SSDD]

[

I freely admit I'm not a climate scientist so I would appreciate a link to the graph source to help me.
Thanks.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06...-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

 

[idb]

[

I freely admit I'm not a climate scientist so I would appreciate a link to the graph source to help me.
Thanks.

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means « Roy Spencer, PhD

Cheers