Reply With Quote
I corrected myself after that.
Again, you are being unethical. I make a mistake and corrected it, but you take the low road.
Attack... Attack... Attack...
Grow up.
LOL this isn't WC but its a classic none the less.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=874
I corrected myself after that.
Again, you are being unethical. I make a mistake and corrected it, but you take the low road.
Attack... Attack... Attack...
Grow up.
You make a lot of mistakes for someone that understands.
Your intent is obvious: to confirm your bias at all costs. You can claim intent but what is important is what you actually claim. That you do not stand by what you claim but instead move the goalposts speaks volumes.
And your martyr routine falls on deaf ears. The only one that has ever somewhat defended you was winehole and even that was more aobut him not liking me than it was you having any merit.
You are stupid and as long as you do stupid things, you are going to get called on it. Cry all you like.
Yes, I make a lot of mistakes. My terminology is wrong more than I l;ike. Does that mean I don't understand? No!
I have admitted long ago, and more than a few times that I get terminology wrong at times.
Now I go back to this. Do you want an honest debate, or do you just want to be a cyber bully like FuzzNutz? Do you want to be childish and use simple mistakes as a reason to unethically shut someone down, or do you want to have some honor?
Wait a second. I don't understand the terminology, but I totally understand what I'm talking about?
That means I'm a ing super-hyper-genius!
This just shows you are being a troll.
My bad, thenthat wasn't my example at all, EN.
Not in all cases, no.
<slowly walks out of this thread again>
I guess that depends on the specific data type and why it isn't complete.
Would you trust those in charge of data sites, that have a clear agenda, of selectively reducing the number of data sites, at their whim?
If I use statistics for levels of certainty, am I being honest if I have purposely chosen what data would and would not be included?
This is just two of the things the Climate science community has been caught doing to support their agenda.
Now another thing I like to point out every now and then.
Why does the IPCC only include "direct" solar forcing in their radiative forcing assessments? What about the feedback? Why can I not find any material that actually takes into account the complete solar forcing effects?
I don't know enough of those "data sites" or their "agenda" to really answer that.
That said, you've a very perceptible bias and overall ignorance of what's being discussed, so you'll probably be at the very bottom of whom I ask.
For the record I agree with everything you post. I personally find it very hard to see things like the parameterization of clouds in GCMs and say they are without a reasonable degree of error. I definitely can't wait for the added computer power that will bring that in better. There's obviously a large degree in error of modeling the climate which is why the IPCC gives a wide range.My bad, then
The problem is when talking to people like those in this thread who look at that margin of error and decide that climate models then have no use. Couldn't be further from the truth.
I understand why the margin of error is like it is. I just don't trust scientific peer reviewed papers done in a closer peer review process, especially with such a politically motivated topic. Wouldn't these results be believable if the more skeptical members of the science community reviewed them as well?
You don't understand , WC.
I wonder if Darrin still wants to trust HadCRUT now that they've updated their dataset?
I doubt it.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1022
Yes, I understand.
You aren't willing to go there. If scientists not trained in the church of AGW were to point out fallacies, the papers would never make it through the peer review process. that's why it's a closed process. Only those who already believe the dogma are allowed to participate.
I don't have a problem with good/bad models for academic purposes. Building relatively successful models take a lot of iterations through error prone ones.
I simply don't think world-wide decisions should be made at this time over simulations with ample error margins. A five day weather forecast is rarely anywhere near 50% right. A 5-10 year forecast... other than telling me it's going to be hot in the summer and cold in the winter, there's not much more I can really buy from it (again, at this time).
But the onus should certainly be on improving the models, the simulations, until perhaps at some point we'll have much less error and a much better idea of what we're looking at, and you can convince skeptics like me that you really have a pretty complete and accurate model. We've already seen progress like that during the last 20/30 years. Hopefully we can keep improving on that.
Probably the same reason why you could not find anything that stated scientists considered temperature in regards to the oceans CO2 flux. It took me about 4 words into google and 4 clicks to find it.
You call me a bully however when you display over and over again your lack of cognitive abilities at what point does that demonstrate that you lack even average intelligence? If there are indeed stupid people in the world how do you point one out? Is it wrong to call a duck a duck?
The truth no matter how repugnant is still the truth.
Why? Did they massage it (yet again) such that it matches GISS? That wouldn't surprise me.
They added more data to it. It comes out warmer as they added more data in the northern la udes where warming is greatest. That should cause you to dismiss it out of hand.
Whats really interesting is that the main reason the NASA dataset is hotter is because it includes areas that HADCRUT4 does not. When you look at the common areas, HADCRUT4 acrually runs substantially warmer. HADCRUT3 did as well, but its increased.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.co.uk/
Holy .
Best site on the internet.
Sidebar: When and When Not to Trust Data
DO trust data when it is promoted by a trusted figure such as Laird Monckton, Dr Professor Ian Plimer, or anyone with Solar based climate theory.
DONT trust data if it toes an IPCC line. We know the IPCC is always wrong so if data is compatible with man-made global warming in any way, it must be political data with an agenda and cannot be trusted.
DONT trust nature. Nature itself will sometimes conspire with the alarmists and fabricate political data about itself. Even raw data can lie. For example some glaciers are in decline even though we should be entering an ice age. I have my su ions that if nature could vote it would vote Obama.
DO trust data if it contradicts the IPCC. Temperature data that exhibit a lack of warming can automatically be trusted and should be used immediately.
NEVER trust supposed copies of Birth Certificates issued from Hawaii.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
