Thread to Talk Shit about Global Warming

[Crick]

No. I think they are mistaken and have made a false correlation and built a model which confirms their bias but doesn't agree with the empirical climate data of the past 50 million years.

So you do think you are smarter and less biased than all of them. Does that really seem like a rational position to you?

 

[ding]

So you do think you are smarter and less biased than all of them. Does that really seem like a rational position to you?

Again... I think they are mistaken.

They rely upon flawed computer models which don't match empirical climate data and ignore what the empirical climate data is telling them. Increased water vapor leads to a net cooling, not a net warming. If that were not true the planet would have never cooled for 50 million years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm.

 

[Crick]

Again... I think they are mistaken.

But you are not. So you must be smarter than them. Than all of them.

They rely upon flawed computer models

And you know this from your vast experience in advanced computer programming with climate models and your examination of the actual code. And, of course, they don't think they are flawed. So you must be smarter than them. Than all of them.

which don't match empirical climate data and ignore what the empirical climate data is telling them.

Which they must not know so you must be smarter than all of them.

Increased water vapor leads to a net cooling, not a net warming.

Which they do not realize. So you must be smarter than all those thousands of PhD climate scientists who've been studying this very problem for decades.

If that were not true the planet would have never cooled for 50 million years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm.

Wow. You are SOOOO-O-O-O-O-O much smarter than those thousands of PhD climate scientists.

I'm sorry about your delusion but that is not a rational position. You are not smarter than them. You are not a climate scientist. You aren't any kind of scientist. Period.

 

[jc456]

But you are not. So you must be smarter than them. Than all of them.

do you think you are smarter than those PhDs with dissenting opinions?

 

[Crick]

do you think you are smarter than those PhDs with dissenting opinions?

I don't know, but I think the 99+% of scientists whose conclusions re AGW I accept are a lot smarter. A number of those dissenting scientists make mistakes in basic science. Some of those mistakes are subtle and arcane and some are blatantly obvious. Who was the "dissenter" we were talking about a few days ago who thought a CO2 molecule could absorb more energy than it would radiate? How about Spencer and Christy and their out of cal satellite data?

Here. If nothing else, the references section in the linked study should be a gold mine of bad science you can use.

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed​

Hard to deny.
By
Katherine Ellen Foley

PublishedSeptember 5, 2017


It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)

Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology.

Learning from mistakes in climate research - Theoretical and Applied Climatology

Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these...

link.springer.com

The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.
“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.

One of Hayhoe’s co-authors, Rasmus Benestad, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built the program using the computer language R—which conveniently works on all computer platforms—to replicate each of the papers’ results and to try to understand how they reached their conclusions. Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.

Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing.
And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. “In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup,” the authors write.

Those who assert that these papers are correct while the other 97% are wrong are holding up science where the researchers had already decided what results they sought, the authors of the review say. Good science is objective—it doesn’t care what anyone wants the answers to be.

The review serves as an answer to the charge that the minority view on climate change has been consistently suppressed, wrote Hayhoe. “It’s a lot easier for someone to claim they’ve been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can’t find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology… They weren’t suppressed. They’re out there, where anyone can find them.” Indeed, the review raises the question of how these papers came to be published in the first place, when they used flawed methodology, which the rigorous peer-review process is designed to weed out.

In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”

The Galileo example is also instructive, Nuccitelli points out. The “father of observational science,” championed the astronomical model that the earth and other planets in our solar system revolve around the sun—a view that was eventually accepted almost universally as the truth. “If any of the contrarians were a modern-day Galileo, he would present a theory that’s supported by the scientific evidence and that’s not based on methodological errors,” he writes. “Such a sound theory would convince scientific experts, and a consensus would begin to form.”

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

Scientists who deny climate change are not modern-day Galileos.

qz.com

 

[jc456]

I don't know, but I think the 99+% of scientists whose conclusions re AGW I accept are a lot smarter.

of course you do, cause you are brainwashed to believe that. Dude, you ask and I present. Then all you do is inject your opinions. Who fking cares about your opinions. The PHDs say otherwise, I'll follow those folks who are not compliant to the money.

Friends of Science have more credibility than you.

 

[Crick]

of course you do, cause you are brainwashed to believe that. Dude, you ask and I present. Then all you do is inject your opinions. Who fking cares about your opinions. The PHDs say otherwise, I'll follow those folks who are not compliant to the money.

Friends of Science have more credibility than you.

You admit that only a tiny percentage of scientists disagree with the IPCC conclusions. You have ZERO evidence of widespread fraud. I have just presented evidence that the small percentage of deniers are scientifically incompetent

So where is it you think you have any credibility?

 

[jc456]

You admit that only a tiny percentage of scientists disagree with the IPCC conclusions. You have ZERO evidence of widespread fraud. I have just presented evidence that the small percentage of deniers are scientifically incompetent

So where is it you think you have any credibility?

The IPCC is what exactly? Is it run by scientists? Do they do scientific research? The IPCC is an illusion presented as a front. nothing in it is based on science or climate. I already posted the evidence here... And the dude lied about the documents they use. They are not all peer reviewed. oops, lost all credibility.

 

[Crick]

The IPCC is what exactly? Is it run by scientists? Do they do scientific research? The IPCC is an illusion presented as a front. nothing in it is based on science or climate. I already posted the evidence here... And the dude lied about the documents they use. They are not all peer reviewed. oops, lost all credibility.

The IPCC has NEVER claimed to do research. From their very creation, their chartered purpose has been to assess published science on the subject of manmade global warming and climate change.

 

[jc456]

The IPCC has NEVER claimed to do research. From their very creation, their chartered purpose has been to assess published science on the subject of manmade global warming and climate change.

for what purpose?

 

[Crick]

for what purpose?

Obviously so climate scientists could get rich.

 

[jc456]

Ask the UN fool.

you use them as a scientific body all the time. What is their purpose if it isn't scientific?

Donna Laframboise tells us they are nothing more than activists​

 

[Crick]

you use them as a scientific body all the time. What is their purpose if it isn't scientific?

Donna Laframboise tells us they are nothing more than activists​

They are an extremely good source for the assessment of a great deal of published science. That they don't conduct research does not mean that they aren't scientific. Is a science text book unscientific? Is a professor of science teaching class unscientific? The problem here is your abysmal understanding of any facet of actual science. You have never had a fucking clue what you're talking about here and have done absolutely nothing to correct the situation.

 

[jc456]

t they aren't scientific

They aren’t scientific. I posted the video why

 

[jc456]

They are an extremely good source for the assessment of a great deal of published science. That they don't conduct research does not mean that they aren't scientific. Is a science text book unscientific? Is a professor of science teaching class unscientific? The problem here is your abysmal understanding of any facet of actual science. You have never had a fucking clue what you're talking about here and have done absolutely nothing to correct the situation.

A bowling team of scientists is a bowling team

 

[HikerGuy83]

What you need to start doing, Todd, is coming up with a post that actually has some pertinent content.

What is the title of this thread again ?

 

[jc456]

They are an extremely good source for the assessment of a great deal of published science. That they don't conduct research does not mean that they aren't scientific. Is a science text book unscientific? Is a professor of science teaching class unscientific? The problem here is your abysmal understanding of any facet of actual science. You have never had a fucking clue what you're talking about here and have done absolutely nothing to correct the situation.

 

[Crick]

What is the title of this thread again ?

Thread to Talk Shit about Global Warming and I'm the OP.

I went back to see what ToddsterPatriot has posted but his post(s) seem to be missing.

 

[jc456]

Thread to Talk Shit about Global Warming and I'm the OP.

I went back to see what ToddsterPatriot has posted but his post(s) seem to be missing.

You don’t know how to search, they’re here. You blatantly lied there

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The IPCC is what exactly? Is it run by scientists? Do they do scientific research? The IPCC is an illusion presented as a front. nothing in it is based on science or climate. I already posted the evidence here... And the dude lied about the documents they use. They are not all peer reviewed. oops, lost all credibility.