Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

[westwall]

Of course you'll. try to discredit him.

Any scientist that tried to prove global warming is a lie gets ignored or squelched.

The emperor has no clothes but you like looking at him naked.

Global warming is a lie. A calculated lie.

Why and how would Dante be able to discredit a scientist and his supposed findings?

Weirdo people who get caught up in conspiracies theories usually assume they and others have much more power than they really do.

It is the scientific community that discredits this one lone kook. Dante is only sharing widely available information. It is you Misty that is admiring the Emperor Dr Evans with his supposed new clothes

Showing yet again that dainty and the majority of progressive don't and can't understand the scientific method. It is the DUTY of every scientist to try and disprove the theories of other scientists. Only political clowns, charlatans, and piss poor scientists EVER make the claim that there is no point in arguing over some scientific theory. The warmists claim the science is settled because they know that when questioned they collapse into a quivering pile of goo.

A scientist, a true scientist revels in the give and take of a point well argued. Only cowards and those who lie, have a desire, and a need, to deny discussion.

Nah, your math blogger isn't arguing over a theory, he is arguing against the scientific consensus on climate change and global warming

Scientists in a particular field do try and disprove the theories of other scientists and their own theories. You keep relying on the claims of non climate scientists. NASA agrees the science on warming is settled. Now you may disagree with how to deal with it or even with how the specific causes contribute... but ...

... only a lunatic will try and insist the globe has not warmed without offering up credible peer-reviewed, scientific proof refuting the science NASA is relying upon NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

As well he should. "Consensus" is a word of politics and not science. Anybody arguing for global warming based on consensus is resorting to "Appeals to Authority" and we ALL know how worthless that sort of logic fail is now don't we....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?

Okay -- and you and your blogger know more about the science than NASA does NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

Actually you're the clowns who rely on studies that are pal reviewed...well, how about wife reviewed! The ultimate in scientific fraud and you guys are the master practitioners!


“They were flying at 1,500 feet with the purpose of looking for bowhead whales, which are much larger and easier to spot.”

Ramey also says he sees a conflict of interest for Monnett’s wife to be part of the internal peer review, and questioned the awarding of a contract to Derocher, who also participated in the peer review.

“That’s not impartial,” Ramey said. “It’s really important that peer review be truly independent. If they can’t be, then everyone has to state their conflict right up front.”

Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe

You guys? A master practitioner? I guess because you regurgitate what you imagine is science, you think of yourself as some SORT of a scientist.

Dante has made no such claims by way of insinuation or otherwise. Dante has consistently said he follows what NASA and the scientists in the field of climate science have to say on the subject. So EXCUSE ME for listening to experts in science over bloggers

 

[westwall]

You're the one with the anti science philosophy. You wish to absolutely squelch discussion of the subject. That is as anti science as you can get.

Now you sound exactly like CODE PINK



Dante cannot squelch scientific discussion, He can only post what science has agreed upon, and that is that the field of climate science is where to loo for global warming data and theories. There exists within tthe WORLDWIDE scientific community, a consensus on global warming

your blogger is worse than an outlier, he is demented

Tell us about the scientific method dainty. Use your words or use those of wiki, I don't care. But after you have posted up the scientific method please show us anywhere where it says that first off science is ever settled, and secondly how scientific discussion is to be denied.

I'll wait.

 

[westwall]

So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?

Okay -- and you and your blogger know more about the science than NASA does NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

Actually you're the clowns who rely on studies that are pal reviewed...well, how about wife reviewed! The ultimate in scientific fraud and you guys are the master practitioners!


“They were flying at 1,500 feet with the purpose of looking for bowhead whales, which are much larger and easier to spot.”

Ramey also says he sees a conflict of interest for Monnett’s wife to be part of the internal peer review, and questioned the awarding of a contract to Derocher, who also participated in the peer review.

“That’s not impartial,” Ramey said. “It’s really important that peer review be truly independent. If they can’t be, then everyone has to state their conflict right up front.”

Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe

You guys? A master practitioner? I guess because you regurgitate what you imagine is science, you think of yourself as some SORT of a scientist.

Dante has made no such claims by way of insinuation or otherwise. Dante has consistently said he follows what NASA and the scientists in the field of climate science have to say on the subject. So EXCUSE ME for listening to experts in science over bloggers

Unlike you who refer to yourself in the third person because of your lack of intellect and profound insecurity, I actually am a scientist, and have been, for longer than you have no doubt been alive.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But the science is settled!

on the point that the globe has warmed? Yes. As with all science new evidence could alter, upend, or even strengthen the point. NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

But if you want to claim NASA and most every single expert in the field of climate science is wrong...

please don't whine or complain when you are called a fool

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

please, allow Dante to appeal to an authority ...


MIT's Kerry Emanuel on What We Know About Climate Change | MIT Conversation on Climate Change

MIT Climate Change Blog
MIT's Kerry Emanuel on What We Know About Climate Change

February 15, 2015
The vast majority of scientists agree that human activity has significantly increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere--most dramatically since the 1970s. Yet global warming skeptics and ill-informed elected officials continue to dismiss this broad scientific consensus. 

In a new edition of his authoritative book, MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel and member of MIT's Climate Change Conversation Committee, outlines the basic science of global warming and how the current consensus has emerged.

- See more at: MIT's Kerry Emanuel on What We Know About Climate Change | MIT Conversation on Climate Change

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Unlike you who refer to yourself in the third person because of your lack of intellect and profound insecurity, I actually am a scientist, and have been, for longer than you have no doubt been alive.

Bob Dole?

and I once knew somebody who had been a scientist in the US Space Program...

...back in the 1960s. They would no more claim to be a space expert 50 - 60 years later than you should claim to be some sort of expert in whatever scientific field you would claim.

You're NOT a climate scientist, so it is you who are appealing to a false authority

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But the science is settled!

Drive by Jew? The joke is directed at you using the screen name Rabbi


good gawd, ...

 

[westwall]

please, allow Dante to appeal to an authority ...


MIT's Kerry Emanuel on What We Know About Climate Change | MIT Conversation on Climate Change

MIT Climate Change Blog
MIT's Kerry Emanuel on What We Know About Climate Change

February 15, 2015
The vast majority of scientists agree that human activity has significantly increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere--most dramatically since the 1970s. Yet global warming skeptics and ill-informed elected officials continue to dismiss this broad scientific consensus. 

In a new edition of his authoritative book, MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel and member of MIT's Climate Change Conversation Committee, outlines the basic science of global warming and how the current consensus has emerged.

- See more at: MIT's Kerry Emanuel on What We Know About Climate Change | MIT Conversation on Climate Change

Yeah? So? They are logic fails that are relied on by people incapable of defending their position through lack of facts.
Congrats, you're a moron.

"An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

 

[westwall]

Unlike you who refer to yourself in the third person because of your lack of intellect and profound insecurity, I actually am a scientist, and have been, for longer than you have no doubt been alive.

Bob Dole?

and I once knew somebody who had been a scientist in the US Space Program...

...back in the 1960s. They would no more claim to be a space expert 50 - 60 years later than you should claim to be some sort of expert in whatever scientific field you would claim.

You're NOT a climate scientist, so it is you who are appealing to a false authority

I am a scientist and have been one for over 40 years. I am not relying on authority to defend my position. I am using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to do so. You should look it up. I realize that the SM destroys your appeals to authority, and your scientific consensus bullshit, but the scientific method is what sets scientists apart from religious evangelists.

 

[westwall]

But the science is settled!

on the point that the globe has warmed? Yes. As with all science new evidence could alter, upend, or even strengthen the point. NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

But if you want to claim NASA and most every single expert in the field of climate science is wrong...

please don't whine or complain when you are called a fool

I guess you haven't kept up with the current science. Here is what the the IPCC has to say about the "pause" (though they call it the hiatus) so even YOUR source for all that you hold dear says the pause is real and they can't explain it other than normal variability! Dude, you're now just making yourself look really fucking stupid.

"Surface Warming “Pause”
After a period of rapid warming during the 1990s, global mean surface temperatures have not warmed as rapidly over the past decade. The AR5 notes there are “differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10-15 years (e.g., 1998-2012)”. It concludes that the recent reduction in surface warming is probably due to a redistribution of heat in the ocean, volcanic eruptions, and the recent minimum in the 11-year solar cycle. Most importantly, the report specifically points out that these trends should not undermine our confidence in the “big picture” of our understanding of climate change: “trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.”

In addition, there is new research proposing explanations for the recent trends that did not make the deadline to be included in the AR5. One paper suggests that some of this “lost” heat is actually in the deep ocean, while another notes that the warming “pause” is actually explained by the unusual number of La Niña (sea surface cooling events) in the Pacific Ocean. The second paper by Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie states that the “current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue.”

IPCC AR5 Working Group I Highlights | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yeah? So? They are logic fails that are relied on by people incapable of defending their position through lack of facts.
Congrats, you're a moron.

"An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

There is no appeal. Reporting what the climate science scientists say is a fallacy to you?

 

[whitehall]

Government funded university research often brings out the greed rather than the truth. A hundred years ago a government/private industry sponsored Harvard research grant found that high incidents of cancer in factory workers exposed to radioactive material had nothing to do with painting radium dials on WW1 military equipment. In other words you can bet your ass(ets) that a university (and private laboratory) will come to whatever conclusion the grant pays them to find. Professors might even authorize their students to commit assault on people who disagree with the man-made global warming theory as long as they can still trade in that old Lexus for a new model.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Unlike you who refer to yourself in the third person because of your lack of intellect and profound insecurity, I actually am a scientist, and have been, for longer than you have no doubt been alive.

Bob Dole?

and I once knew somebody who had been a scientist in the US Space Program...

...back in the 1960s. They would no more claim to be a space expert 50 - 60 years later than you should claim to be some sort of expert in whatever scientific field you would claim.

You're NOT a climate scientist, so it is you who are appealing to a false authority

I am a scientist and have been one for over 40 years. I am not relying on authority to defend my position. I am using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to do so. You should look it up. I realize that the SM destroys your appeals to authority, and your scientific consensus bullshit, but the scientific method is what sets scientists apart from religious evangelists.

westwall claims to be an authority on science -- he's a scientist -- westwall makes claims that other scientists with no training in climate science have more authority when speaking on climate science than climate scientists do -- this is true because after all westwall is a scientist

1. Therefore, C is true.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Government funded university research often brings out the greed rather than the truth.

Often? How often? What has that to do with NASA and other scientific organizations?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Government funded university research often brings out the greed rather than the truth. A hundred years ago a government/private industry sponsored Harvard research grant found that high incidents of cancer in factory workers exposed to radioactive material had nothing to do with painting radium dials on WW1 military equipment. In other words you can bet your ass(ets) that a university (and private laboratory) will come to whatever conclusion the grant pays them to find. Professors might even authorize their students to commit assault on people who disagree with the man-made global warming theory as long as they can still trade in that old Lexus for a new model.

do you have a degree in
paranoia and conspiracies?

 

[Misty]

But the science is settled!

on the point that the globe has warmed? Yes. As with all science new evidence could alter, upend, or even strengthen the point. NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

But if you want to claim NASA and most every single expert in the field of climate science is wrong...

please don't whine or complain when you are called a fool

Don't get me started on NASA. That's a whole thread of its own.

 

[gtopa1]

So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?

Okay -- and you and your blogger know more about the science than NASA does NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

No you dill; just one of many....and I have supplied you with some of them. I am interested in this guy's calculations and how they stand up to peer review. You aren't. You use the old Chicago style of politics....lie and cheat!!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Government funded university research often brings out the greed rather than the truth. A hundred years ago a government/private industry sponsored Harvard research grant found that high incidents of cancer in factory workers exposed to radioactive material had nothing to do with painting radium dials on WW1 military equipment. In other words you can bet your ass(ets) that a university (and private laboratory) will come to whatever conclusion the grant pays them to find. Professors might even authorize their students to commit assault on people who disagree with the man-made global warming theory as long as they can still trade in that old Lexus for a new model.

do you have a degree in
paranoia and conspiracies?

I'm not an "end of worlder", cultist!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?

Okay -- and you and your blogger know more about the science than NASA does NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

Actually you're the clowns who rely on studies that are pal reviewed...well, how about wife reviewed! The ultimate in scientific fraud and you guys are the master practitioners!


“They were flying at 1,500 feet with the purpose of looking for bowhead whales, which are much larger and easier to spot.”

Ramey also says he sees a conflict of interest for Monnett’s wife to be part of the internal peer review, and questioned the awarding of a contract to Derocher, who also participated in the peer review.

“That’s not impartial,” Ramey said. “It’s really important that peer review be truly independent. If they can’t be, then everyone has to state their conflict right up front.”

Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe

You guys? A master practitioner? I guess because you regurgitate what you imagine is science, you think of yourself as some SORT of a scientist.

Dante has made no such claims by way of insinuation or otherwise. Dante has consistently said he follows what NASA and the scientists in the field of climate science have to say on the subject. So EXCUSE ME for listening to experts in science over bloggers

You're a fraud!!

Greg