For those who love modeling... A Comparison CO2 vs No CO2

[Billy_Bob]

An interesting article by Andy May was posted today about modeling the current warming with and without CO2's impact. Its outcome was as predicted, CO2's impact was lost in the noise.


The article is a good read, and it is well sourced. I hope my alarmist friends will do the math and look at this for themselves.

Modeling HadCRUT5 with CO2 and without CO2 • Watts Up With That?

By Andy May I hate statistics, as many of you know. Some people think statistics and/or statistical models that meet standard statistical criteria are facts. The IPCC can be like that. They statistically model global surface temperatures with models of volcanic and anthropogenic forcing and...

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[Anomalism]

Why do Wattsupwiththat and that other blogger website (I forget the name) account for like 99% of all media that contradicts what scientists are telling us about the climate? Does that not seem strange to anybody else?

Are all of the scientists and scientific institutions all over the world corrupt and lying to us, or is it more likely that the bullshitters are the couple of blog websites with spotty at best credibility that pump this shit out?

You people are desperate and blind if that doesn't raise red flags for you.

 

[Anomalism]

Also the sources they link to come from scientists that believe AGW is happening. They are taking the work of scientists and deciding for themselves how to translate it. The work they cite is from scientists that disagree with them. They just manipulate the conclusion and feed it to you retarded forum dwellers.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why do Wattsupwiththat and that other blogger website (I forget the same) account for like 99% of all media that contradicts what scientists are telling us about the climate? Does that not seem strange to anybody else?

Are all of the scientists and scientific institutions all over the world corrupt and lying to us, or is it more likely that the bullshitters are the couple of blog websites with spotty at best credibility that pump this shit out?

You people are desperate and blind if that doesn't raise red flags for you.

You refuse to do the math. The article is well sourced and factual. Why do you attack this without facts to back yourself up? You all have no problem parroting SKS but suddenly someone presents science that is open, and you can replicate, then it's not acceptable?

You people are the science deniers, not us. You deny everything that counters your AGW narrative.

 

[Anomalism]

You refuse to do the math. The article is well sourced and factual. Why do you attack this without facts to back yourself up? You all have no problem parroting SKS but suddenly someone presents science that is open and you can replicate is not acceptable?

You people are the science deniers, not us. You deny everything that counters your AGW narrative.

The source work was done by scientists that believe AGW is happening. You people are not hard to fool, so all they have to do is manipulate the conclusion of scientific findings that you never understood in the first place.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The source work was done by scientists that believe AGW is happening. You people are not hard to fool, so all they have to do is manipulate the conclusion of scientific findings that you never understood in the first place.

Prove it and supply the model and its modelers name. I would love to tear the model apart, if I haven't already... You folks live and die by the model. Now one is showing that CO2 has no discernable impact and your all butt hurt...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Andy May even used the IPCC's own numbers... That has got to sting.

 

[Libby von H]

An interesting article by Andy May was posted today about modeling the current warming with and without CO2's impact. Its outcome was as predicted, CO2's impact was lost in the noise.

View attachment 859973
The article is a good read, and it is well sourced. I hope my alarmist friends will do the math and look at this for themselves.

Modeling HadCRUT5 with CO2 and without CO2 • Watts Up With That?

By Andy May I hate statistics, as many of you know. Some people think statistics and/or statistical models that meet standard statistical criteria are facts. The IPCC can be like that. They statistically model global surface temperatures with models of volcanic and anthropogenic forcing and...

wattsupwiththat.com

Good for you but ---as you peobably know -- that result has been around for many years.

 

[Anomalism]

Prove it and supply the model and its modelers name. I would love to tear the model apart, if I haven't already... You folks live and die by the model. Now one is showing that CO2 has no discernable impact and your all butt hurt...

I'm not emotionally invested in this like most of you are. I would love to find out that the scientists were wrong about everything.

And really? Prove it? I know a shill like you is more than aware of the fact that they constantly use sources from scientific institutions to make themselves look legitimate, while at the same time contradicting the conclusions of those sources.

You don't get to bear the standard of credibility of some scientific organization when you're literally contradicting their conclusions and telling them that their work means something other than what they interpreted it to mean. It's arrogant and dishonest. You people really are disgusting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Good for you but ---as you peobably know -- that result has been around for many years.

I've done the math as an atmospheric physicist, I know...

 

[Anomalism]

Andy May even used the IPCC's own numbers... That has got to sting.

This is what I'm talking about dude. But the IPCC does not believe any of that work has proven their theories wrong. You have taken the work of actual scientists and decided that it means something other than what the scientists said it means. You are a clown.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm not emotionally invested in this like most of you are. I would love to find out that the scientists were wrong about everything.

And really? Prove it? I know a shill like you is more than aware of the fact that they constantly use sources from scientific institutions to make themselves look legitimate, while at the same time contradicting the conclusions of those sources.

You don't get to bear the standard of credibility of some scientific organization when you're literally contradicting their conclusions and telling them that their work means something other than what they interpreted it to mean. It's arrogant and dishonest. You people really are disgusting.

And there you have it... Deflection and then ridicule.... The modus operandus of a troll

 

[Anomalism]

And there you have it... Deflection and then ridicule.... The modus operandus of a troll

There is no way for me to have a debate with you because you decide for yourself what reality is rather than listening to the people that actually do the work.

All that's left is to call you a clown.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is what I'm talking about dude. But the IPCC does not believe any of that work has proven their theories wrong. You have taken the work of actual scientists and decided that it means something other than what the scientist said it means. You are a clown.

Ah yes... Mr. May did a basic statistical analysis and you refuse to acknowledge he is a scientist...

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is no wait for me to have a debate with you because you decide for yourself what reality is rather than listening to the people that actually do the work.

I've been doing atmospheric analysis for over 15 years. I don't take what is fed from propogandists like yourself.

 

[Anomalism]

Ah yes... Mr. May did a basic statistical analysis and you refuse to acknowledge he is a scientist...

I actually think that you know you're full of it and that this is all kind of just a show for readers.

Whatever. I said what I came here to say. Continue on with your nonsense at your leisure. Have a nice day.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I actually think that you know you're full of it and that this is all kind of just a show for readers.

Whatever. I said what I came here to say. Continue on with your nonsense at your leisure. Have a nice day.

LOL.... Nice deflection. Please address the math that Mr. May presented. His modeling is reproduceable and verifiable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are all of the scientists and scientific institutions all over the world corrupt and lying to us,

Well, anytime someone disagrees with AGW, the greentwats try to cancel them.

 

[Anomalism]

Well, anytime someone disagrees with AGW, the greentwats try to cancel them.

You can't cancel good science dude, at least not for very long, especially in the hyper speed communication world of 2023. If these guys were doing their own original work that contradicts what's currently believed they would be getting attention. They're not doing that though. They are taking the work of scientists that believe it's happening and then deciding for themselves what the conclusions are, to work they didn't do. They're not doing their own work. They're manipulating other people's work to fool people.

The scientific team that proves global warming isn't happening will be famous and rich. Their names will go down in history. I assure you every scientist in the world would love to be part of the team that unequivocally proves that AGW is not actually happening. Those people would be immortalized, cherished and celebrated for the rest of their lives.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't cancel good science dude, at least not for very long, especially in the hyper speed communication world of 2023. If these guys were doing their own original work that contradicts what's currently believed they would be getting attention. They're not doing that though. They are taking the work of scientists that believe it's happening and then deciding for themselves what the conclusions are, to work they didn't do. They're not doing their own work. They're manipulating other people's work to fool people.

The scientific team that proves global warming isn't happening will be famous and rich. Their names will go down in history. I assure you every scientist in the world would love to be part of the team that unequivocally proves that AGW is not actually happening. Those people would be immortalized, cherished and celebrated for the rest of their lives.

If the science is on your side, why the need to cancel anyone who is a skeptic?