How have the IPCC's computer models performed?

[Crick]

I'm still thinking you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. You're rejecting the formulated opinions of thousands of PhD scientists with a 10th grade ramble about isotopes.

Did you catch the comment that's appeared several places that the isotopic analysis results are verified by simple bookkeeping? I asked you this earlier but you did not answer. If that CO2 is NOT from humans burning fossil fuels, where DID the CO2 we produced burning those fuels go to? Do you have an answer for that?

 

[Kosh]

I'm still thinking you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. You're rejecting the formulated opinions of thousands of PhD scientists with a 10th grade ramble about isotopes.

Did you catch the comment that's appeared several places that the isotopic analysis results are verified by simple bookkeeping? I asked you this earlier but you did not answer. If that CO2 is NOT from humans burning fossil fuels, where DID the CO2 we produced burning those fuels go to? Do you have an answer for that?

Once again the AGW cult wants someone to explain a negative..

 

[Crick]

English isn't your native language, is it.

I asked him to explain where the CO2 we produced by burning fossil fuels has gone. How is that "explaining a negative" and, for that matter, what would be wrong with asking someone to "explain a negative"? Earlier, I showed you three ways you can prove a negative in case that was what you actually intended to say - not that it would apply here.

Are you drinking?

 

[Kosh]

English isn't your native language, is it.

I asked him to explain where the CO2 we produced by burning fossil fuels has gone. How is that "explaining a negative" and, for that matter, what would be wrong with asking someone to "explain a negative"? I even showed you three ways you can prove a negative in case that was what you were actually intending to say - not that it would apply here as I've done no such thing.

Are you drinking?

Still waiting on that one link that shows the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Finally going to grow up and admit that it does not exist?

 

[itfitzme]

Does anyone who knows the history of science not see a problem with this? Does any body see the glaring problem there? Doesn't that sound familiar?

A is true. B is true. Therefore A caused B.

See.... I could have sworn..... just sworn that the phrase "Correlation does not equal causation" was written back in the 1880s, and yet here we are 2014, and people are still boldly claiming that it really does.

Yeah.... I gotta give you credit for actually backing up your use of "Correlation doesn't prove causation" with something.

The thing is this; that's what is said to undergrad students and the general public because they need to learn to keep it in mind.

Correlation is required for causality as well. So when correlation is found, it isn't dismissed readily either. And everybody with sound science skills and education is well aware of how to interpret coorelation.

I suppose the response is "No shit, Sherlock"!

Once solid correlation is found, that independent variable is kept in the model, even as other variables are added. Finding a second potentially causal factor isn't reason to throw out the first. Finding another coorelation doesn't prove the first isn't causal either.

As more factors are found, they all get tested as part of a multivariate analysis. Combinations of variables are tested to find the best fit.

Causality is determined seperately by isolating the factor and demonstrating it to be causal, like in the lab. We already know CO2 is causal. That's the easy part. Every highschool science teacher can to that demo, and most probably have.

And we also already know how much CO2 is being put into the atmosphere. We can just add that up amd get a reasonable " ball park" figure.

The isotope thing is just another nail in the coffin.

Causality isn't the issue. The issue is how bad will it get.

Surely you must know you and I are years behind and just playing catch up.

 

[itfitzme]

English isn't your native language, is it.

I asked him to explain where the CO2 we produced by burning fossil fuels has gone. How is that "explaining a negative" and, for that matter, what would be wrong with asking someone to "explain a negative"? I even showed you three ways you can prove a negative in case that was what you were actually intending to say - not that it would apply here as I've done no such thing.

Are you drinking?

Still waiting on that one link that shows the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Finally going to grow up and admit that it does not exist?

And your point is what? That because no one has done an experiment for you and given you data then AWG is not correct?

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Last I checked, the world doesn't revolve around you. Most people figure that out in childhood? So how old are you, like 12?

BTW: I did find thas source code and data. As I recall, the code wasmin FORTRAN. Try doing some research like everyone else. I did run that data set and posted it in a thread with instructions on how to do a multivariate regressio. It was like half a year ago. You can try searching the forum. The thing is, your ignorance isn't proof. I know you think is, but it isn't.

 

[skookerasbil]

English isn't your native language, is it.

I asked him to explain where the CO2 we produced by burning fossil fuels has gone. How is that "explaining a negative" and, for that matter, what would be wrong with asking someone to "explain a negative"? I even showed you three ways you can prove a negative in case that was what you were actually intending to say - not that it would apply here as I've done no such thing.

Are you drinking?

Still waiting on that one link that shows the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Finally going to grow up and admit that it does not exist?

And your point is what? That because no one has done an experiment for you and given you data then AWG is not correct?

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Last I checked, the world doesn't revolve around you. Most people figure that out in childhood? So how old are you, like 12?

s0n......you're deep in the Matrix. Shit.....even the agencies who develop the datasets are saying they are inaccurate.............s0n....turn off MSNBC.....nobody watches that network except the nutters.


95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD


Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming - Forbes



Articles: IPCC 's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming


Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling





Not that it really matters anyway......a huge majority of Americans think the scientists are fucking with the data!!



69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports?

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[mamooth]

When skook starts spamming, everyone correctly takes that as an admission of how the poor addled deniers are in full retreat.

 

[skookerasbil]

When skook starts spamming, everyone correctly takes that as an admission of how the poor addled deniers are in full retreat.

Almost 100,000 views of spamming s0n!!! >>>

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html


Your threads get about 86 "views" s0n!!!






Embracing public humiliation is ghey s0n!!!






Oh......and almost forgot this gem from DAVEMAN!!! >>>>

IPCC spin translated ? the leaked Synopsis admits 97% of models fail « JoNova

 

[itfitzme]

English isn't your native language, is it.

I asked him to explain where the CO2 we produced by burning fossil fuels has gone. How is that "explaining a negative" and, for that matter, what would be wrong with asking someone to "explain a negative"? I even showed you three ways you can prove a negative in case that was what you were actually intending to say - not that it would apply here as I've done no such thing.h

Are you drinking?

Still waiting on that one link that shows the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Finally going to grow up and admit that it does not exist?

I have a question for you. When you find the data set and code, what are you planning to do with it?

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh....and talking about "deniers" being in "full retreat"!!!!



Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns


69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports?









Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooops!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

More nut sack kicking from the skeptics!!!

 

[itfitzme]

Oh....and talking about "deniers" being in "full retreat"!!!!



Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns


69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports?









Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooops!!!!

Again, that just raises the question, what's your point?

 

[itfitzme]

Still waiting on that one link that shows the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Finally going to grow up and admit that it does not exist?

And your point is what? That because no one has done an experiment for you and given you data then AWG is not correct?

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Last I checked, the world doesn't revolve around you. Most people figure that out in childhood? So how old are you, like 12?

s0n......you're deep in the Matrix. Shit.....even the agencies who develop the datasets are saying they are inaccurate.............s0n....turn off MSNBC.....nobody watches that network except the nutters.


95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD


Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming - Forbes



Articles: IPCC 's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming


Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling





Not that it really matters anyway......a huge majority of Americans think the scientists are fucking with the data!!



69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports?

I'm just asking for reasonable answers and points. By the way you just post random titles, I'm not seeing that you know anything at all. Hell, I could design a program that would find and post links to articles. In fact, that is how. ScienceDaily: News, Videos & Articles in Science, Health, Technology & Environment works. And, it does a better job than you do.

 

[Kosh]

English isn't your native language, is it.

I asked him to explain where the CO2 we produced by burning fossil fuels has gone. How is that "explaining a negative" and, for that matter, what would be wrong with asking someone to "explain a negative"? I even showed you three ways you can prove a negative in case that was what you were actually intending to say - not that it would apply here as I've done no such thing.h

Are you drinking?

Still waiting on that one link that shows the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Finally going to grow up and admit that it does not exist?

I have a question for you. When you find the data set and code, what are you planning to do with it?

To check and make sure all the claims are scientifically valid.

However you are going tell me you can post them, then I know you are liar.

 

[Kosh]

And your point is what? That because no one has done an experiment for you and given you data then AWG is not correct?

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Last I checked, the world doesn't revolve around you. Most people figure that out in childhood? So how old are you, like 12?

s0n......you're deep in the Matrix. Shit.....even the agencies who develop the datasets are saying they are inaccurate.............s0n....turn off MSNBC.....nobody watches that network except the nutters.


95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD


Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming - Forbes



Articles: IPCC 's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming


Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling





Not that it really matters anyway......a huge majority of Americans think the scientists are fucking with the data!!



69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports?

I'm just asking for reasonable answers and points. By the way you just post random titles, I'm not seeing that you know anything at all. Hell, I could design a program that would find and post links to articles. In fact, that is how. ScienceDaily: News, Videos & Articles in Science, Health, Technology & Environment works. And, it does a better job than you do.

Bam! Shoots down all the AGW cult posts and does not even realize it.

 

[itfitzme]

'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming: Arctic warming fast -- ScienceDaily

 

[itfitzme]

Global warming not uniform around the globe: Some areas were recently cooling -- ScienceDaily



Skooker fail!!!!!

 

[itfitzme]

New long-lived greenhouse gas discovered: Highest global-warming impact of any compound to date -- ScienceDaily





Oh no!!! Another skooker fail

New long-lived greenhouse gas discovered: Highest global-warming impact of any compound to date -- ScienceDaily





Oh no!!! Another skooker fail