Analysis shows climate modeling fraud.. Pal Review by Journals

[DrLove]

Alternative Science Threads Rule!

 

[skookerasbil]

Pal reviews are ghey.... but that's how the club does science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Did you think model-makers SHOULDN'T attempt to improve their models? Or just that they didn't?

Ok Retard...

IF they improved their models, train them with the ample evidence collected prior to 1998 and then let the model show what it is capable of... But that is not what they do. They train away the total deviations and then claim consistency without any projection or prediction time. That is the deception game they are playing. They attempt to kick the falsification down the road 30 more years and they come out continuing their scaremongering without a fact one to hang their doom and gloom on.

That's the kind of shoddy/deceptive science you alarmists hang your hat on.. And your falsified rate of rise never changes, indicating your model has not been changed other than to hide the fact IT FAILS EMPIRICAL REVIEW.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Alternative Science Threads Rule!

AT LEAST YOUR NOT HIDING YOUR IGNORANCE.... (you really should get that clap checked out by a real doc)

It's rather funny how those who don't have a clue will post up irrelevant crap to the thread. How about you support your position on the failure of climate models?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Globally there is OBSERVED evidence of global glaciation.

Red is retreating glaciers, blue is advancing glaciers. That's based on measurements, not models.

Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures > Graphics

So, what evidence do you have for your insane reality-defying claim? REmember, a cherrypick isn't evidence, because we know a few glaciers are advancing. The point is that most glaciers are retreating, not advancing, and that glacial mass as a whole is declining.

Did you notice that almost all of the specific areas on the chart show MAXIMUM extent right at the peak of the LIA, then start melting back after the LIA climatology fades away?

 

[bripat9643]

This reminds me of when McIntyre pointed out that Steig's methodology and statistics were wrong on a cover article in Nature. They laughed and said what are you going to do about it? Write your own paper? So he did.

The peer review was onerous, and one reviewer demanded a specific addition. Once the paper was finally published, in a lower rated journal not Nature, Steig berated the addition that was forced on McIntyre as a condition for publishing. Unfortunately for Steig, he accidentally admitted that he was in fact the reviewer that demanded the addition.

Peer review is atrocious because of the double standard imposed on articles contrary to consensus climate science. Favourable papers slip through with obvious flaws while unfavourable ones are dissected with a fine tooth comb and usually rejected for non scientific reasons that are pathetic.

That's why it's called "PAL review."