Only 52% of Meteorologists/Atmospheric Experts Believe in AGW

[Kosh]

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

 

[Kosh]

See what happens when they have to provide links? They give links to every place except where they said they got the info or a link to the place that doesnt have the info they claim.

Yep been asking the far left AGW church going Obama drones for datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate and so far no links have appeared (except for those to the AGW propaganda sites).

 

[RDD_1210]

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Oh, so NASA is an opinion we should trust on Global climate change?

 

[Kosh]

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Oh, so NASA is an opinion we should trust on Global climate change?

Are you saying that we should not trust NASA on AGW?

 

[RDD_1210]

Jeebus, you're one dumb fuckin' troll, fella. Here you go, I'll serve it right up for you.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

LOL. Only the 58th post in the thread before you actually posted a link.

And that link doesn't prove ANYTHING you've claimed. You idiots are amazing.

Did you actually read the shit you posted? I mean, I know you didn't. You know you didn't, so why did you post a link that would prove yourself to be wrong? Because you hope everyone is as lazy as you are.

 

[RDD_1210]

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Oh, so NASA is an opinion we should trust on Global climate change?

Are you saying that we should not trust NASA on AGW?

Not at all. I'm just asking if you think NASA's opinion should be trusted when it comes to AGW.

I trust NASA's opinion, do you?

 

[Kosh]

Oh, so NASA is an opinion we should trust on Global climate change?

Are you saying that we should not trust NASA on AGW?

Not at all. I'm just asking if you think NASA's opinion should be trusted when it comes to AGW.

I trust NASA's opinion, do you?

Since you trust them, then I guess they are telling you the models are wrong and you should now apologize to everyone for all your comments to the contrary.

In other words you are wrong! Will you own up to since you claim you trust NASA?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, i do not. Here, let me help you little minded turds out since search engines are too much for you:

Can We Trust the U.N.'s IPCC Climate Models? - Reason.com

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong - Telegraph

The UN IPCC's Climate Modeling Procedures Need Serious Remodeling - Forbes

IPCC Admits they Could be Wrong about Humans Causing Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD

IPCC Railroad engineer Pachauri acknowledges ?No warming for 17 years? | Watts Up With That?

97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | CACA


I hop eyou can find one you like. If you can read (I'm skeptical) they even include hyperlinks for further reading!


You're welcome!

I thought you said the IPCC admitted to being incorrect. How come none of your "proof" actually links to the IPCC? Odd.

That's ok though...you linked us to WhatsupWithThat.com and a WordPress blog.

The links are there, numbnuts. You have to read. I even gave you the source link from the IPCC. You still can not manage to find the fuckin' massage they made about all the models being wrong. I'm not going to spell it out for you, as you clearly do not understand the topic.

 

[RDD_1210]

Are you saying that we should not trust NASA on AGW?

Not at all. I'm just asking if you think NASA's opinion should be trusted when it comes to AGW.

I trust NASA's opinion, do you?

Since you trust them, then I guess they are telling you the models are wrong and you should now apologize to everyone for all your comments to the contrary.

In other words you are wrong! Will you own up to since you claim you trust NASA?

I do trust them, hence why I take their word when they say that their is a consensus and that global warming is real...

Climate Change: Consensus - NASA

and it's major reason why is due to man.

Climate Change: Causes - NASA

Glad we both agree that NASA is to be trusted on this topic.

Is this where you start your back pedaling?

 

[NoNukes]

Nearly half of meteorologists reject man-made global warming | The Daily Caller

Interesting link counter to the "97%" argument regarding scientific consensus:

"The survey of AMS members found that while 52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming.

Furthermore, the survey found that scientists who professed “liberal political views” were much more likely to believe in the theory of man-made global warming than those who without liberal views."


Hardly the "consensus" liberals claim.

We all know how right these people are at predicting the weather, they are the last people who should be asked.

 

[Kosh]

Not at all. I'm just asking if you think NASA's opinion should be trusted when it comes to AGW.

I trust NASA's opinion, do you?

Since you trust them, then I guess they are telling you the models are wrong and you should now apologize to everyone for all your comments to the contrary.

In other words you are wrong! Will you own up to since you claim you trust NASA?

I do trust them, hence why I take their word when they say that their is a consensus and that global warming is real...

Climate Change: Consensus - NASA

and it's major reason why is due to man.

Climate Change: Causes - NASA

Glad we both agree that NASA is to be trusted on this topic.

Is this where you start your back pedaling?

As usual the far left AGW church going Obama drone can not admit to being wrong and claims to trust NASA but clearly does not.

And further proof that AGW church members do not have a clue on the subject beyond what they are programmed to think.

 

[RDD_1210]

Since you trust them, then I guess they are telling you the models are wrong and you should now apologize to everyone for all your comments to the contrary.

In other words you are wrong! Will you own up to since you claim you trust NASA?

I do trust them, hence why I take their word when they say that their is a consensus and that global warming is real...

Climate Change: Consensus - NASA

and it's major reason why is due to man.

Climate Change: Causes - NASA

Glad we both agree that NASA is to be trusted on this topic.

Is this where you start your back pedaling?

As usual the far left AGW church going Obama drone can not admit to being wrong and claims to trust NASA but clearly does not.

And further proof that AGW church members do not have a clue on the subject beyond what they are programmed to think.

So you trust NASA or not?

This is where you avoid answering the question and expose yourself for the hypocrite you are.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Not at all. I'm just asking if you think NASA's opinion should be trusted when it comes to AGW.

I trust NASA's opinion, do you?

Since you trust them, then I guess they are telling you the models are wrong and you should now apologize to everyone for all your comments to the contrary.

In other words you are wrong! Will you own up to since you claim you trust NASA?

I do trust them, hence why I take their word when they say that their is a consensus and that global warming is real...

Climate Change: Consensus - NASA

and it's major reason why is due to man.

Climate Change: Causes - NASA

Glad we both agree that NASA is to be trusted on this topic.

Is this where you start your back pedaling?

I love hoe ignorant and yet so sure posters are on this topic. Is there anything to notice about the NASA climate change causes link? Like, perhaps that ALL of the data being used to make conclusions is out of date? Gee, you'd think they would update to modern data, but why do that? I mean, we can keep old data up and make false claims based on it, right?

You simply do not understand the topic at hand, or the fact that data sets change and are challenged regularly. As it currently stands, 97% of all models have been wrong against observation. The IPCC has members that admit so, and I linked you to it.

But you scoff because your belief system will not let you question the validity of whether or not Climate Jesus exists and to what degree.

 

[RDD_1210]

Since you trust them, then I guess they are telling you the models are wrong and you should now apologize to everyone for all your comments to the contrary.

In other words you are wrong! Will you own up to since you claim you trust NASA?

I do trust them, hence why I take their word when they say that their is a consensus and that global warming is real...

Climate Change: Consensus - NASA

and it's major reason why is due to man.

Climate Change: Causes - NASA

Glad we both agree that NASA is to be trusted on this topic.

Is this where you start your back pedaling?

I love hoe ignorant and yet so sure posters are on this topic. Is there anything to notice about the NASA climate change causes link? Like, perhaps that ALL of the data being used to make conclusions is out of date? Gee, you'd think they would update to modern data, but why do that? I mean, we can keep old data up and make false claims based on it, right?

You simply do not understand the topic at hand, or the fact that data sets change and are challenged regularly. As it currently stands, 97% of all models have been wrong against observation. The IPCC has members that admit so, and I linked you to it.

But you scoff because your belief system will not let you question the validity of whether or not Climate Jesus exists and to what degree.

You linked to something that doesn't say anything remotely close to what you're claiming. That's been shown by another poster on the previous page, but you conveniently ignored that post. Wonder why.

You posted a link that you didn't read because you're lazy and hoped we'd be too lazy to read it as well. Sorry, you've exposed yourself as a straight up liar. You must be proud.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I linked you to SEVERAL sources so that your source bias bullshit could be avoided. And yet you STILL tried it. There are several links there, Poindexter. The information is there, if only you would learn to read and allow cognition instead of cognition failure over your Clmiate Jesus. Anyway, I'm bored of the topic.

The OP is nonsense and meaningless. The rest is the typical LOLberal moronic attempts to understand something they do not to defend (what i will call from now on) Climate Jesus.

 

[RDD_1210]

I linked you to SEVERAL sources so that your source bias bullshit could be avoided. And yet you STILL tried it. There are several links there, Poindexter. The information is there, if only you would learn to read and allow cognition instead of cognition failure over your Clmiate Jesus. Anyway, I'm bored of the topic.

The OP is nonsense and meaningless. The rest is the typical LOLberal moronic attempts to understand something they do not to defend (what i will call from now on) Climate Jesus.

You linked to to hack blogs and opinion pieces but yet you can highlight the portion of the actual IPCC report that claims the shit you spew. Why?

Because it doesn't exist
Because you're lazy
Because you're a liar

Pretty sure it's a combination of all 3. But go ahead, be "bored" of the topic now that you've repeatedly made yourself look ridiculous. You must be bored often.

Run away chump, it is what you're best at.

 

[RDD_1210]

I do trust them, hence why I take their word when they say that their is a consensus and that global warming is real...

Climate Change: Consensus - NASA

and it's major reason why is due to man.

Climate Change: Causes - NASA

Glad we both agree that NASA is to be trusted on this topic.

Is this where you start your back pedaling?

As usual the far left AGW church going Obama drone can not admit to being wrong and claims to trust NASA but clearly does not.

And further proof that AGW church members do not have a clue on the subject beyond what they are programmed to think.

So you trust NASA or not?

This is where you avoid answering the question and expose yourself for the hypocrite you are.

As predicted Kosh bails on answering this question and the thread.

You people have literally ZERO integrity. None.

 

[flacaltenn]

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Oh, so NASA is an opinion we should trust on Global climate change?

Actually --- that's completely correct.. Does the name James Hansen ring a bell?
He's just the Pied Piper of Global Warming. And NASA IS one of the USA lead agencies on GW. Every here of GISS?

Well -- not EVERYONE at NASA agrees to the degree that they've overstated their claims, but it's a big agency with the BULK of funding for climate change.

PERHAPS --- if you're that far behind the curve --- you ought to invest a bit..

 

[RollingThunder]

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, Dullard.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. using the science available, the AGW crowd is the one who has been swinging and missing. The models are wrong. Projections are wrong. And there is plenty of serious question remaining about climate change. Even the IPCC admits they were wrong on the models.

I dont give a fuck how many flat earth people you can crowd into a room. Appeal to authority and consensus do not give a scientific theory merit.

I would call your complete ignorance about all this astounding, except that it is actually quite normal for the brainwashed, anti-science, politically motivated retards, like you, in your little astroturfed cult of reality denial. The denial of the value of scientific consensus, and the claim that the use of a scientific consensus as supporting evidence somehow represents a fallacious appeal to authority, are the actual "logical fallacies" here that you are stupidly trying to use. The propaganda induced denial that there is a very real scientific consensus on the reality and causes of global warming is part of the fossil fuel industry's efforts to confuse the public and delay the necessary actions to deal with the climate change crisis the world is facing, and that effort is very similar to the efforts the tobacco companies made several decades ago to confuse the public about the existent scientific/medical consensus on the dangers if smoking. Both efforts are motivated by a desire to preserve their profits no matter what kind of death and suffering their products are causing or will cause.

Your ignorant misunderstanding of what is meant by "appeal to authority" and "scientific consensus" is not surprising in someone as obviously retarded and heavily brainwashed as you are. You are confusing arguments that use the testimony of the experts in a field of science with a "fallacious appeal to authority".

Argument from authority
Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus)

Appeal to Misleading Authority

Argumentum ad verecundiam

Scientific consensus
The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.[2]

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.[2]

Scientific consensus
Pseudoscience advocates tend to see scientific consensus as just an argument from authority or a conspiracy. This is a twisting of both the Galileo gambit/science was wrong before and false dichotomy - that since the notion of falsifiability exists (no theory.. can never be fully certain) we should then ignore the mountains of literature already available.

Scientific Consensus
The Role of Consensus
For anyone trying to take a scientific approach to knowledge about the world, we must rely heavily upon experts, or those who are more knowledgable than we are. There is no choice – there is simply too much specialized scientific knowledge for anyone to be an expert in everything, or even a significant portion of scientific disciplines.

Further, being an educated layperson is usually not enough to form your own opinions on specific scientific questions. Forming a reliable opinion often requires a level of detailed knowledge that only an expert in the field can obtain. Even experts can be wrong, of course, and since lay opinions are likely to span all possibilities, some are bound to be correct. Experts, however, are far more likely to have an opinion that accurately reflects the evidence and to understand how to incorporate new evidence as it comes in.

There are plenty of examples, however, of experts coming to conclusions that were profoundly wrong. How is the public supposed to rely upon expert opinion, then? Proper scientific authority does not rely in any individual. Individuals are quirky and may have biases and influences that lead them astray.

Scientific authority, rather, lies in the consensus of scientific opinion. When many experts look at the data and come to the same conclusion, it is more likely to be accurate than anomalous. A consensus of many experts is simply more reliable than the quirky opinions of a single expert.

It is therefore the consensus of opinion (or should be) that determines what goes in the science textbooks, what is taught is science classrooms, how applied sciences are regulated, and how society spends its resources.

The Pivotal Role of Perceived Scientific Consensus

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Scientific opinion on climate change

 

[Kosh]

As usual the far left AGW church going Obama drone can not admit to being wrong and claims to trust NASA but clearly does not.

And further proof that AGW church members do not have a clue on the subject beyond what they are programmed to think.

So you trust NASA or not?

This is where you avoid answering the question and expose yourself for the hypocrite you are.

As predicted Kosh bails on answering this question and the thread.

You people have literally ZERO integrity. None.

I see that you can not admit the models are wrong, are you going to own up to being wrong?