Why models run hot

[Rambunctious]

This is why so many people have had enough with the link between science and Government. We need to find a new way to fund science that does not include the federal government screwing it up in an attempt to control us all.
check out this link and learn something.

http://wmbriggs.com/public/Monckton.et.al.pdf

 

[mamooth]

But models don't run hot. They run right on. So much for that conspiracy theory. There's a good reason that fabricated nonsense wasn't submitted to peer review, that reason being no honest peer reviewer would have let such dishonest garbage pass.

The especially hilarious part of it is that Soon is an author, and that the article ends with "The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest." Apparently, the millions Soon was paid for "deliverables" isn't a conflict of interest. I guess deniers think that, since they're so openly bought and paid for, their status as shills doesn't even need to be mentioned.

 

[Rambunctious]

But models don't run hot. They run right on.

You're wrong....sorry.....read more

 

[TheOldSchool]

The thing about science is that a significant amount of it isn't done for profit. Nobody wants AGW to be a thing, too many people would lose money. The big technology companies don't want to go to Mars, there's no money in it.

But huge benefits come from studying things for no other reason than the sake of science. No one can fund it like the government. If we'd stop spending on so much other crap we'd benefit a lot by going back to science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But models don't run hot. They run right on. So much for that conspiracy theory. There's a good reason that fabricated nonsense wasn't submitted to peer review, that reason being no honest peer reviewer would have let such dishonest garbage pass.

The especially hilarious part of it is that Soon is an author, and that the article ends with "The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest." Apparently, the millions Soon was paid for "deliverables" isn't a conflict of interest. I guess deniers think that, since they're so openly bought and paid for, their status as shills doesn't even need to be mentioned.

Epic FAIL

 

[Old Rocks]

Billy Boob, you are doing it again. No link for the source of the graph. That completely negates any credibility that the graph many have. If you are not going to post a link so we can see that source of your information, then it is best for all just to assume that your information has no credibility.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy Boob, you are doing it again. No link for the source of the graph. That completely negates any credibility that the graph many have. If you are not going to post a link so we can see that source of your information, then it is best for all just to assume that your information has no credibility.

Poor little libtard... Are you having problems with Google or are you just to dam lazy to look it up for yourself and need to throw out adhoms? Credibility? You have none as you keep posting James Hansen's work as if it is somehow credible, yet Hansen's work was placed into a graph along with the IPCC AR1/AR2 model projections showing the failure when compared with empirical evidence by Dr David M.W. Evans.. The graph speaks for itself.

Original Source

The Skeptics Case (PDF)

 

[bripat9643]

But models don't run hot. They run right on. So much for that conspiracy theory. There's a good reason that fabricated nonsense wasn't submitted to peer review, that reason being no honest peer reviewer would have let such dishonest garbage pass.

The especially hilarious part of it is that Soon is an author, and that the article ends with "The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest." Apparently, the millions Soon was paid for "deliverables" isn't a conflict of interest. I guess deniers think that, since they're so openly bought and paid for, their status as shills doesn't even need to be mentioned.

Every so-called "climate scientist" has been paid millions for deliverables.

 

[bripat9643]

But models don't run hot. They run right on. So much for that conspiracy theory. There's a good reason that fabricated nonsense wasn't submitted to peer review, that reason being no honest peer reviewer would have let such dishonest garbage pass.

The especially hilarious part of it is that Soon is an author, and that the article ends with "The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest." Apparently, the millions Soon was paid for "deliverables" isn't a conflict of interest. I guess deniers think that, since they're so openly bought and paid for, their status as shills doesn't even need to be mentioned.

 

[Old Rocks]

But models don't run hot. They run right on. So much for that conspiracy theory. There's a good reason that fabricated nonsense wasn't submitted to peer review, that reason being no honest peer reviewer would have let such dishonest garbage pass.

The especially hilarious part of it is that Soon is an author, and that the article ends with "The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest." Apparently, the millions Soon was paid for "deliverables" isn't a conflict of interest. I guess deniers think that, since they're so openly bought and paid for, their status as shills doesn't even need to be mentioned.

Every so-called "climate scientist" has been paid millions for deliverables.

Link, asshole, link.

 

[Old Rocks]

Evens is simply another fraud.
David Evans Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evens is simply another fraud.
David Evans Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold

Old Crock uses another adhom and instead of any reasoning uses slander.. Using the boys over at SKS is a dangerous thing to do. As of last count there are 7 slander suits pending from their rantings. Its about as accurate as the website hotwhopper or mother jones..

 

[Old Rocks]

Evens is simply another fraud.
David Evans Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold

Old Crock uses another adhom and instead of any reasoning uses slander.. Using the boys over at SKS is a dangerous thing to do. As of last count there are 7 slander suits pending from their rantings. Its about as accurate as the website hotwhopper or mother jones..

Link? Come on now, you made a flat statement. So, show us those 7 slander suits. Or be recognized for the liar you are.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evens is simply another fraud.
David Evans Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold

Old Crock uses another adhom and instead of any reasoning uses slander.. Using the boys over at SKS is a dangerous thing to do. As of last count there are 7 slander suits pending from their rantings. Its about as accurate as the website hotwhopper or mother jones..

Link? Come on now, you made a flat statement. So, show us those 7 slander suits. Or be recognized for the liar you are.

Link yourself... Fool! SKS is about as credible as wiki is... and wiki isn't...

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, you are lying again. Such a silly person, your repeated lies brand you as a little non-entity.

 

[Billy_Bob]

In other words, you are lying again. Such a silly person, your repeated lies brand you as a little non-entity.

You have a lot to prove with your silly accusations... You think your so cute prove your allegation..

 

[bripat9643]

But models don't run hot. They run right on. So much for that conspiracy theory. There's a good reason that fabricated nonsense wasn't submitted to peer review, that reason being no honest peer reviewer would have let such dishonest garbage pass.

The especially hilarious part of it is that Soon is an author, and that the article ends with "The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest." Apparently, the millions Soon was paid for "deliverables" isn't a conflict of interest. I guess deniers think that, since they're so openly bought and paid for, their status as shills doesn't even need to be mentioned.

Every so-called "climate scientist" has been paid millions for deliverables.

Link, asshole, link.

I don't need to provide a link for the claim that the sun will come up tomorrow. The same goes for stating the fact that all so-called "climate scientists" are sucking on the government tit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dear little lying corksmokers, you cannot provide a link because there are none. In the meantime;

According to his bio, Evans claims to be a “Rocket Scientist,” and one article describes him as a “Top Rocket Scientist.” While Evans's background does show that he has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever employed as a rocket scientist.

When DeSmogBlog contacted Evans regarding his claim of being a rocket scientist, Evans replied that “In US academic and industry parlance, 'rocket scientist' means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions.”

Evans also claims to be “building a word processor for Windows.” DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft and they have confirmed that he does not work for them.

Background
Evans is an editor for the Australian edition of GoldNerds, a company that sells information about gold companies to investors. He also does private mathematics research. [1]

David Evans gained media attention after an article he wrote titled, “No smoking hot spot,” which was published in The Australian in June, 2008. The article claims that climate change is not caused by C02 emissions because there is no evidence of “a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.” [2]

Evans's claim has been thoroughly debunked by Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales. [3]
David Evans DeSmogBlog

 

[jc456]

But models don't run hot. They run right on. So much for that conspiracy theory. There's a good reason that fabricated nonsense wasn't submitted to peer review, that reason being no honest peer reviewer would have let such dishonest garbage pass.

The especially hilarious part of it is that Soon is an author, and that the article ends with "The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest." Apparently, the millions Soon was paid for "deliverables" isn't a conflict of interest. I guess deniers think that, since they're so openly bought and paid for, their status as shills doesn't even need to be mentioned.

so why didn't the AR5 report say that?

 

[Billy_Bob]

We could put the new Berkly Earth Sciences paper in this thread too, if it were credible, as it definitively would prove the models exaggerate all warming so badly they are worthless.. In some ways, if this paper were true it would put an end to the vilification of CO2 as it shows the effect is irrelevant in earths atmosphere.

Almost 30 years after Hansen s 1988 alarm on global warming a claim of confirmation on CO2 forcing Watts Up With That