You just going relink your UAH balloon satellite and pretend that is wasn't rebutted? That would be just like cosmored.
A tale of two PowerPoint presentations:
The first is by someone that RandomGuy would consider a conspiracy nutter -- Dr. Judith Curry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry)
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/curry.pdf
The second is by someone I could consider an AGW alarmist -- Dr. Kevin Trenberth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_E._Trenberth)
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2.../trenberth.pdf
You didn't rebut , ratboy
I have shown you, repeatedly, the difference between an ad hominem logical fallacy, and simply calling someone a name, you .
Morons like yourself are wrong, because the quality of your arguments is ty. It isn't because you are a pencil- ed , or can't summon the brainpower required to tie your shoes on a consistent basis. It isn't because your momma dresses you funny. It isn't because pusillanimous windbags that consistently make logically flawed arguments wallow in their own ignorance like pigs in their own , or return to the same sad arguments again and again, like dogs to their vomit.
It is because you consistently make arguments that are, in essence, based upon ignorance of the scientific principles involved. That is why you are wrong.
Does this help outline the difference between an ad hominem fallacy, and simple name calling?
From Curry's presentation:
Agreement:
• Globally averaged surface temperatures have increased since 1880
• Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
• Carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases have a
warming effect on the planet
Disagreement:
• Whether the warming since 1950 has been
dominated by human causes
• How much the planet will warm in the 21st
century
• Whether warming is ‘dangerous’
• Whether we can afford to radically reduce CO2 emissions
I know, totally "wacko" positions.
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.
I don't know why you and Fuzzy go full Tourette's.
Speaking of a move, you have accused me of believing in some sort of pseudoscience.You have to admit it, Fuzzy, that was a real move.
I had forgotten about this post
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5911214
I asked:
Are you going to ignore this one too?Secondly, what pseudoscience do I believe in? Define pseudoscience as part of your answer.
It was primarily trying to get you to understand what exactly an ad hominem logical fallacy is. You seem to wave that around as if you understand it, when your posts rather obviously demonstrate the opposite.If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.
I don't know why you and Fuzzy go full Tourette's.
Secondarily, it was fun to write.
Yes, they are, as I have made the case repeatedly, thanks in no small part to posts by people like you.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post4668019
How does that feel?
What a sad little "scoreboard".
You know, it's too bad that the "Recursive Fury" paper got retracted. I have the feeling that you would've really enjoyed that paper.
It fit with the le of the thread. I will make no apologies for it, as it was fun to do. Everyone has to have a hobby.
It was kinda sad, but not in the way you mean it.
Yeah I did. Your UAH guy keeps on trying to act like his tropospheric temperature readings are the standard by which all models should be judged.
You never responded. You were instead trying to convince wine that you have been objective from the very beginning. That was a sidetrack but I would like it noted that I wanted to talk the science. Are you going to address the disconnect between the satellite band temperature readings and whole earth climate model outputs?That strip of 40 degrees is about 15% of the earths crust. The CMIP estimates are whole earth. Now I do not know where the disconnect is because who knows what is data points they plucked from CMIPs data but that is ty misleading bull . Just like I expect from you.
It's cute that you saved graphs from the UAH guy on your cloud though.
Also here is the graph that the IPCC uses to present their case:
and here is the graphs legend:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...n/faq-8-1.html
Or are you going to use it to claim model outputs are not consistent with observations still? This speaks directly to what RG is talking about in unsound principles. You claim your graph shows the x and y axis to not be in accord but your data sets are not consistent. You do this a lot. Regurgitate bad graphs.
FuzzyTurd,
They were focusing on the tropics for a reason.
Do you really think they were comparing the satellite measurements in that narrow band to "whole earth" models?
I don't think. I know what the CMIP is.
I will help and I will give you a hint: it has nothing to do with la ude, dimwit.
http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/Coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models allow the simulated climate to adjust to changes in climate forcing, such as increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. CMIP began in 1995 by collecting output from model "control runs" in which climate forcing is held constant. Later versions of CMIP have collected output from an idealized scenario of global warming, with atmospheric CO2 increasing at the rate of 1% per year until it doubles at about Year 70. CMIP output is available for study by approved diagnostic sub-projects.
From reading that are they modeling temperature? Is there ocean outside of the equator? Is there land in the equatorial band?
Again you post without looking to see if it valid. You are a sophist piece of .
lol, you're a dumbass. You don't think they compared model output for tropical la udes? Maybe you should report them?
oh, by the way, the satellite dataset covers WAY more of the earth than the surface temperature records.
Last edited by DarrinS; 04-14-2014 at 10:53 PM.
And you still don't know why they were focusing on that band?
Since you are unable to answer the questions I will do the critical thinking for you.lol, you're a dumbass. You don't think they compared model output for tropical la udes? Maybe you should report them?
oh, by the way, the satellite dataset covers WAY more of the earth than the surface temperature records.
Why are you patting yourself on the back over satellites covering more than just surface temp records. Your graph clearly says troposphere temps between la udes. You not understanding what you are posting gets old.
CMIP does not include land. The arbitrary 15% of the Earth UAH came up with includes land. The datasets are not comparable because the satellite data includes air over much of africa asia and the americas. There really should be nothing more to say.
If he would have instead chosen the pacific ocean or atlantic or a body of water to map then that would make sense. That is how the model is set up. CMIP models the forcing interchange between the ocean and atmosphere. There are other models that describe the interaction with the surface as well.
The whole models which CMIP isn't include the interaction between all three mediums. Those are the models in the graph I posted
You ignored the IPCC whole earth models and data comparison graph that shows that data.
Steyn strikes out on his own, asking for a trial on the merits:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...s-his-own-way/The climate policy debate is quite heated. Partisans hurl charges against each others with impunity, challenging the honesty, intelligence, and integrity of those on the other side. So it’s understandable that many environmentalists hope Mann will win. Yet should he prevail, many on his side may come to rue this result. Should Mann win, it will not be long before defamation suits are filed in the other direction. Every time an environmental activist suggests someone on the other side is “bought” by fossil fuel interests, they had better be able to substantiate their claim, or they will be inviting a lawsuit. And while it would be nice to have less ad hominem in our political debates, and more serious discussion of climate policy in particular, the threat of defamation suits is not a good way to achieve this result.
maybe the suing will stop the defamation, but most of the scientists who deny AGW have been shown to be on the take, at one time or another, directly or indirectly, from BigCarbon and/or BigCorp.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-11-2014 at 04:14 PM.
or, maybe it will make it easier for special interests to sue the bearers of bad news.
False Balance Lives: Media Biased Toward Fringe Climate Scientists Who Reject Global Consensus
A new study finds that the media disproportionately favors scientists who reject the basic scientific consensus on climate change. By consensus, I mean the latest findings of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), which are already overly cautious and watered down.
Some — though not most — analysts have declared the media’s era of false balance in climate coverage is over. But the truth is that the media continue to present the public a misleading picture on climate science, giving fringe scientists more attention(disproportionate to their actual number) than the leading climate scientists.
A new study in Environmental Science and Technology by Bart Verheggen et al, surveys “more than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change” and finds:
- There is widespread agreement that global warming is predominantly caused by human greenhouse gases.
- This consensus strengthens with increased expertise, as defined by the number of self-reported articles in the peer-reviewed literature.
- Self-reported media exposure is higher for those who are skeptical of a significant human influence on climate.
So what did the study find about false balance? It found that scientists who say that the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions is below the consensus range report getting the most frequent media exposure.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...iased-climate/
Lol, tp
the biggest LOL is you demagogue'd dupes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
