Reasons we don't like the Kool Aid on global warming

[Si modo]

How have their predictions been way off in predictions, please?

TIA

I suspect that you will not comprehend, but as I said in the other thread to which I linked, almost all of the predictive models (at tleast the ones compiled by the IPCC) are not falsifiable, thus they are non-scientific.

Thanks,

How have the predictions been off, please?

I'll try again (and Crusader Frank actually indicated the concept that the IPCC predictive models are not falsifiable, too) - they are not falsifiable. Thus, they are not scientific. They fail before the starting gate even opens. They do not meet one of the requirements for being scientific - being falsifiable.

Educate yourself on the concept of falsifiability. Right now, you look the fool.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Excuse me? NASA is part of the conspiracy??

Good Lord, the government, NASA, the scientsts, academia, the MSM, .... So many people in on the conspiracy ....

It looks like the only ones not part of the conspiracy are the religious right.

I know you're gullible, but, yes, for the past 2 years now NASA has refused to comply with a FOIA request to release their data on the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster.

Clue: Get one today.

Amd this means they're part of the conspiracy .... slam dunk case here, ...

.... instead of just as dysfunctional as every other group?

You know, like the secret service and airport security and the folks who didn't catch Madoff and yadda yadda yadda?

The ignorant tend to get on my nerves more quickly than the informed so I may not respond to you for a while.

 

[Caligirl]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

this is an idiotic rant.

You stole it from some right wing blog and dont even realize its a phoney paid for mishmash.

Here's some real science. It is from Dr. James Hansen of NASA. It is the prediction that he made before Congress in 1988. It also shows the actual performance of temperature across the period of the prediction.

Dr. Hansen made three predictions and based them on three scenarios of decreased CO2, stable CO2 and increased CO2.

All of his projections were higher than the actual perfromance of the climate.

So much for predictability.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/hansen20.gif
Thoughts on Hansen et al 1988 « Climate Audit

What level of accuracy would you like?

How far out in time, how close to on target on temperature -

to consider a prediction accurate?

 

[Caligirl]

I know you're gullible, but, yes, for the past 2 years now NASA has refused to comply with a FOIA request to release their data on the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster.

Clue: Get one today.

Amd this means they're part of the conspiracy .... slam dunk case here, ...

.... instead of just as dysfunctional as every other group?

You know, like the secret service and airport security and the folks who didn't catch Madoff and yadda yadda yadda?

The ignorant tend to get on my nerves more quickly than the informed so I may not respond to you for a while.

It's probably the coffee talking but I think I'm beginning to like you.

I know, it's not reciprocated.

 

[Caligirl]

I suspect that you will not comprehend, but as I said in the other thread to which I linked, almost all of the predictive models (at tleast the ones compiled by the IPCC) are not falsifiable, thus they are non-scientific.

Thanks,

How have the predictions been off, please?

I'll try again (and Crusader Frank actually indicated the concept that the IPCC predictive models are not falsifiable, too) - they are not falsifiable. Thus, they are not scientific. They fail before the starting gate even opens. They do not meet one of the requirements for being scientific - being falsifiable.

Educate yourself on the concept of falsifiability. Right now, you look the fool.

Actually, I do understand the concept.

To be falsifiable means that an idea can be falsified.

Predictive theories are by nature falsifiable.

But thanks for clearing up which one of us is looking foolish!

 

[Si modo]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

this is an idiotic rant.

You stole it from some right wing blog and dont even realize its a phoney paid for mishmash.

Here's some real science. It is from Dr. James Hansen of NASA. It is the prediction that he made before Congress in 1988. It also shows the actual performance of temperature across the period of the prediction.

Dr. Hansen made three predictions and based them on three scenarios of decreased CO2, stable CO2 and increased CO2.

All of his projections were higher than the actual perfromance of the climate.

So much for predictability.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/hansen20.gif
Thoughts on Hansen et al 1988 « Climate Audit

What level of accuracy would you like?

How far out in time, how close to on target on temperature -

to consider a prediction accurate?

You just don't get it. That demonstrates that there exists no data set for which the model does not give the desired result. Non-falsifiable. Non-scientific.

 

[Caligirl]

I suspect that you will not comprehend, but as I said in the other thread to which I linked, almost all of the predictive models (at tleast the ones compiled by the IPCC) are not falsifiable, thus they are non-scientific.

Thanks,

How have the predictions been off, please?

I'll try again (and Crusader Frank actually indicated the concept that the IPCC predictive models are not falsifiable, too) - they are not falsifiable. Thus, they are not scientific. They fail before the starting gate even opens. They do not meet one of the requirements for being scientific - being falsifiable.

Educate yourself on the concept of falsifiability. Right now, you look the fool.

Oh, and I still don't get in what way the predictions have been off.

Thanks in advance for getting those numbers together -

 

[Si modo]

Thanks,

How have the predictions been off, please?

I'll try again (and Crusader Frank actually indicated the concept that the IPCC predictive models are not falsifiable, too) - they are not falsifiable. Thus, they are not scientific. They fail before the starting gate even opens. They do not meet one of the requirements for being scientific - being falsifiable.

Educate yourself on the concept of falsifiability. Right now, you look the fool.

Actually, I do understand the concept.

To be falsifiable means that an idea can be falsified.

Predictive theories are by nature falsifiable.

But thanks for clearing up which one of us is looking foolish!

Predictive theories 'by nature' are falsifiable? Out of what orifice did you pull that nugget?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Amd this means they're part of the conspiracy .... slam dunk case here, ...

.... instead of just as dysfunctional as every other group?

You know, like the secret service and airport security and the folks who didn't catch Madoff and yadda yadda yadda?

The ignorant tend to get on my nerves more quickly than the informed so I may not respond to you for a while.

It's probably the coffee talking but I think I'm beginning to like you.

I know, it's not reciprocated.

It is, shhhhh, don't tell the other posters or it will ruin my curmudgeonly reputation

 

[Caligirl]

Here's some real science. It is from Dr. James Hansen of NASA. It is the prediction that he made before Congress in 1988. It also shows the actual performance of temperature across the period of the prediction.

Dr. Hansen made three predictions and based them on three scenarios of decreased CO2, stable CO2 and increased CO2.

All of his projections were higher than the actual perfromance of the climate.

So much for predictability.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/hansen20.gif
Thoughts on Hansen et al 1988 « Climate Audit

What level of accuracy would you like?

How far out in time, how close to on target on temperature -

to consider a prediction accurate?

You just don't get it. That demonstrates that there exists no data set for which the model does not give the desired result. Non-falsifiable. Non-scientific.

Why are none of my questions being answered?

What level of accuracy in the predictions would be considered acceptable?

 

[Si modo]

Thanks,

How have the predictions been off, please?

I'll try again (and Crusader Frank actually indicated the concept that the IPCC predictive models are not falsifiable, too) - they are not falsifiable. Thus, they are not scientific. They fail before the starting gate even opens. They do not meet one of the requirements for being scientific - being falsifiable.

Educate yourself on the concept of falsifiability. Right now, you look the fool.

Oh, and I still don't get in what way the predictions have been off.

Thanks in advance for getting those numbers together -

You are clueless. The predictions CANNOT be off, as they are non-falsifiable.

Idiot.

 

[Si modo]

What level of accuracy would you like?

How far out in time, how close to on target on temperature -

to consider a prediction accurate?

You just don't get it. That demonstrates that there exists no data set for which the model does not give the desired result. Non-falsifiable. Non-scientific.

Why are none of my questions being answered?

What level of accuracy in the predictions would be considered acceptable?

They are unacceptable from the start because they are non-scientific.

 

[Caligirl]

I'll try again (and Crusader Frank actually indicated the concept that the IPCC predictive models are not falsifiable, too) - they are not falsifiable. Thus, they are not scientific. They fail before the starting gate even opens. They do not meet one of the requirements for being scientific - being falsifiable.

Educate yourself on the concept of falsifiability. Right now, you look the fool.

Actually, I do understand the concept.

To be falsifiable means that an idea can be falsified.

Predictive theories are by nature falsifiable.

But thanks for clearing up which one of us is looking foolish!

Predictive theories 'by nature' are falsifiable? Out of what orifice did you pull that nugget?

That came out of my brain.

See, science is based on testable predictions. Climate science predicts that as CO2 increases, global temperatures will increase. This is not to say that CO2 is the only factor, but the way things are understood now, CO2 is a major contributor and rising CO2 will lead to rising temperatures.

This is a prediction, and by nature falsifiable. If CO2 continues to rise (we have no reason to think it won't) and global temperatures fall, then the theory is falsified.

See how that works?

 

[Si modo]

Actually, I do understand the concept.

To be falsifiable means that an idea can be falsified.

Predictive theories are by nature falsifiable.

But thanks for clearing up which one of us is looking foolish!

Predictive theories 'by nature' are falsifiable? Out of what orifice did you pull that nugget?

That came out of my brain.

See, science is based on testable predictions. Climate science predicts that as CO2 increases, global temperatures will increase. This is not to say that CO2 is the only factor, but the way things are understood now, CO2 is a major contributor and rising CO2 will lead to rising temperatures.

This is a prediction, and by nature falsifiable. If CO2 continues to rise (we have no reason to think it won't) and global temperatures fall, then the theory is falsified.

See how that works?

You are so lost on the concept of falsifiability. Stop playing at science. You look very foolish.

[Emphasis added] Your statement right there demonstrates your utter lack of comprehension.

God save us all from the hubris of ignorant science dilettantes.

 

[Caligirl]

"The hubris of ignorant science dilletantes" ... ?

LOL that's pretty good.

I'm off to work, thank you for an enjoyable few rounds.

 

[Si modo]

I cannot dumb this down any more than I already have.

I give up. Maybe someone else can do a better job at explaining falsifiability to caligirl.

 

[mudwhistle]

So now science is a cult?

A fact free zone called the conservative mind

Global Warming *consensus* is.

 

[Oddball]

Please read things other than right wing blog sites if you wish to understand science.

You keep handing out the same debunked material.

Why does NASA refuse to comply with the FOIA request for their data for 2 years now?

Excuse me? NASA is part of the conspiracy??

Good Lord, the government, NASA, the scientsts, academia, the MSM, .... So many people in on the conspiracy ....

It looks like the only ones not part of the conspiracy are the religious right.

Doesn't have to be a conspiracy....All you need are key people within the scientific community falsifying the data and excluding everything that contravenes the desired conclusion, and the work of everyone who comes into contact with the cooked books is tainted.

 

[mudwhistle]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

this is an idiotic rant.

You stole it from some right wing blog and dont even realize its a phoney paid for mishmash.

Here's some real science. It is from Dr. James Hansen of NASA. It is the prediction that he made before Congress in 1988. It also shows the actual performance of temperature across the period of the prediction.

Dr. Hansen made three predictions and based them on three scenarios of decreased CO2, stable CO2 and increased CO2.

All of his projections were higher than the actual perfromance of the climate.

So much for predictability.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/hansen20.gif
Thoughts on Hansen et al 1988 « Climate Audit

What level of accuracy would you like?

How far out in time, how close to on target on temperature -

to consider a prediction accurate?

Tell me what the weather will be like the next couple of weeks down to the precipitation level in inches and the temp. within 2 degrees and be accurate close to 100% of the time.

They can't do that. What makes them think they can forecast out 10 years from now?

They had a goal and they bent the factors to fit their scenario. They took into consideration only what they felt helped them and excluded factors that disproved their theories.

Now we have the proof what they did and folks are so sold on the lie that they refuse to listen to that proof. So include yourself in the class of truthers and JFK conspiracy kooks.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Their predictions have been way off in predictions, and we now find that their data is badly cooked.

How have their predictions been way off in predictions, please?

TIA

According to climate models, we are not supposed to be having such low temperature. We have been having snow in places this year that havn't seen snow in more than a decade.

According to climate models, this was supposed to be a very bad year for hurricanes in the Atlantic. We were supposed to have several Katrina sized ones this year. We had zero.