Why do you pretend you don't see things?
I asked you if you understood the words in bold.
Normally when one says and they want to know what your point is.
What is your point?
The bolded words do nothing to back up your claim. I also suggest you try to comprehend the earlier discussion about falsifiability.
Not necessarily. Sometimes one is trying to hide their failure by pretending not to see. Which is your present situation.
I've seen deniers who denied the science, but you take it to a whole new level. You don't even see words.
This sentence is one I'm asking you to read, and to comment on:
From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 1978–98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953–98 sea ice trends.
Do you understand what that sentence means?
Do you understand the meaning of those statistics?
For both, please comment.
Climate models, based on a theory using 2-D flat earth mathematics with no electro-magnetic field, and no self generated heat... yeah that's wonderful..
Socko, haven't you filled up enough board space with your rambling nonsense yet? No? Good cause now I have a few minutes spend...
Care to explain how an "expert" in the sciences like yourself (cough) can be so ignorant of the latest developments in climate research by some of the more public and outspoken climate scientists?
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News
"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models."
Wait isn't Spencer one of your guys?
link an abstract of the source publication, I don't have a subscription ot it sadly, and I am not going to lie and pretend I do like many of your pals do...
Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth?s Radiant Energy Balance
"Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."
Wow thats pretty damn inconvenient, to borrow from one of yours... What the hell man... Climate models aren't to be trusted after all? Must be true its in a peer reviewed journal... Why according to you consensus and peer review is what science is all about.. Ain't that right? If its in a peer review science journal it must be true and fact..
I can't take credit for this one I believe Wirebender posted it originally, but I felt it may be important later and kept the link... So THX Wire!
Anybody with enough scientific clout or compelling enough research can be published in a science journal, and so-called peer-review is done in time by peers not committee, and its completely regardless of what publication its in or what wannabe science rock star/public speaker backs or brings it...
But please continue showing just how little you actually know, I find fakes to be a good source of amusement..
BTW you can download the PDF for that link above its just below the title on the page I linked to... that way you can have some real science to fondle while you play expert...
