Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maybe you can explain why a huge consensus can claim to know the future, based on models they shoehorn into fitting the past, but cannot produce a model that even pretends to show a path to the future they predict.

Throw in some tomfoolery by the likes of Michael Mann and others, and you create skeptics that just aren't going to accept that the consensus knows what the they're talking about.

So, again, when does the consensus's models say the warming is going to resume? I want to mark the day.

We've gone over this part too. WC at least waits a month or two before putting the same refuted up again.

[Yonivore]

We've gone over this part too. WC at least waits a month or two before putting the same refuted up again.

So, there is a model predicting when the planet will begin warming again?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, there is a model predicting when the planet will begin warming again?

You keep acting as if the model is not a reliable day by day forecast that it is invalid. I've shown you models they have that conform very well to observations. You kept claiming there were none.

It's typical ignorance but I know for a fact that Manny has talked to you about the time frames involved and how decadal blocks are what they use. You are being dishonest with your coyness once again.

[Yonivore]

You keep acting as if the model is not a reliable day by day forecast that it is invalid. I've shown you models they have that conform very well to observations. You kept claiming there were none.

It's typical ignorance but I know for a fact that Manny has talked to you about the time frames involved and how decadal blocks are what they use. You are being dishonest with your coyness once again.

I want to see a model that is predictive of a future event in my lifetime.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I want to see a model that is predictive of a future event in my lifetime.

wgaf?

[xrayzebra]

wgaf?

Hmmmmm, folks seemed to be having a problem answering Yonivores question. Does the model show all these cold, snowy days the NE seems to be having. I am quite sure someone will or already has blamed the California storms on warming. But they cant prove it.

[Yonivore]

wgaf?

I do.

[boutons_deux]

I want to see a model that is predictive of a future event in my lifetime.

simple, SCIENCE says: hotter, drier, weather more unstable, more severe, higher tides

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hmmmmm, folks seemed to be having a problem answering Yonivores question. Does the model show all these cold, snowy days the NE seems to be having. I am quite sure someone will or already has blamed the California storms on warming. But they cant prove it.

That is because his premise is that climate models should be interpreted like a weather report which is ignorant to how climate is modeled.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I do.

Remember the part where yous aid you had no desire to understand my motives and desires? Yeah, right back at you. What you want or think is meaningless in the larger context. Your inability to fathom is representative of nothing.

[Yonivore]

simple, a less-than-advertised consensus of SCIENtists, relying on flawed models says: hotter, drier, weather more unstable, more severe, higher tides

There, fixed.

[Yonivore]

That is because his premise is that climate models should be interpreted like a weather report which is ignorant to how climate is modeled.

Climate models are supposed to be predictive. You plug in assumptions and observations and they tell you what's going to happen. I'm not asking you what the models say the weather is going to be next December. I'm asking a question the models are supposed to be able to answer; when will the warming resume? If they know we're going to be x degrees warmer in 100 years, they should also know when the warming trend is liable to restart.

Of course, missing the hiatus makes their reliability problematic, I understand.

[Yonivore]

Remember the part where yous aid you had no desire to understand my motives and desires? Yeah, right back at you. What you want or think is meaningless in the larger context. Your inability to fathom is representative of nothing.

You asked the question.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You asked the question.

You were the one that made the original statement eliciting the question about what you wanted. It was intended to be rhetorical but you missed that. I had to state it explicitly so you could understand.

[Yonivore]

You were the one that made the original statement eliciting the question about what you wanted. It was intended to be rhetorical but you missed that. I had to state it explicitly so you could understand.

I know the WGAF was rhetorical but, you engaged in the exchange and bailed when it became to difficult to answer. You went from "I told you" to "Manny said" to "WGAF."

Well, again, I do. I don't necessarily give a what you have to say but, I would like for the "scientific consensus" to pony up a predictive model, they'll then stand by, so the rest of the world can assess for themselves if these hucksters are worth the time of day.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know the WGAF was rhetorical but, you engaged in the exchange and bailed when it became to difficult to answer. You went from "I told you" to "Manny said" to "WGAF."

Well, again, I do. I don't necessarily give a what you have to say but, I would like for the "scientific consensus" to pony up a predictive model, they'll then stand by, so the rest of the world can assess for themselves if these hucksters are worth the time of day.

I didn't move from one to the other to the other. All 3 are still true concurrently. I told you, Manny told you in a previous discussion and no one gives a what you want.

They have 17 models that are predictive and I showed them to you. Your asking for a weather report only shows you have no clue what is being predicted. Your sense of scale is full of fail.

[Yonivore]

I didn't move from one to the other to the other. All 3 are still true concurrently. I told you, Manny told you in a previous discussion and no one gives a what you want.

They have 17 models that are predictive and I showed them to you. Your asking for a weather report only shows you have no clue what is being predicted. Your sense of scale is full of fail.

Then you should be able to answer the question of when the warming is predicted to resume.

And, 17 models? What's the matter, can't they decide on a set of assumptions?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then you should be able to answer the question of when the warming is predicted to resume.

And, 17 models? What's the matter, can't they decide on a set of assumptions?

Your asking for a weather report only shows you have no clue what is being predicted. Your sense of scale is full of fail.

[Yonivore]

Your asking for a weather report only shows you have no clue what is being predicted. Your sense of scale is full of fail.

Then how do they know it's going to be x degrees warmer in 2100?

I'm not asking for a weather report, I'm asking for a model that shows the trend from today to where they say we'll be in 100 years. Just simply saying we'll be x degrees warmer in a 100 years, isn't going to convince the skeptics. If they can pretend to know what it's going to be then, they can at least make a stab at the next 20 years.

[Poptech]

I'm finding that any mention is good enough to be get on the list regardless of the take of the source.

Do citations metrics like "Impact Factor" take into account how something was cited? Regardless there are only 10 cites out of over 225 listed that were not positive and they are easy to spot on that list as they do not include a link.

This is much like his anti-AGW scientific papers where the paper's conclude the affirmative and he cherry picks that part out.

Please stop spreading misinformation, I do not have a list of "anti-AGW scientific papers", I have a list of papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarmism. Again read the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section of the list,

Criticism: Papers on the list do not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.

[Poptech]

correction: the vast majority of scientists .... (those not paid to deny AGW and its disastrous effects)

When have all the scientists in the world been polled to determine this?

[Poptech]

The stated purpose of this thread is to associate people such as your self with 9-11 truthers. It says so in the OP.

All you have left is to smear skeptics with dishonest ad hominems like this because you cannot debate. Thanks for confirming how bad you are losing that you have to abandon any semblance of intellectual honesty.

All I have to do in order to succeed at that is to simply let you talk, because the faulty reasoning methods and rhetorical style you employ are so strikingly similar that that of the twoofers who push chemtrails, fluoride denial, and controlled demolition.

Pure libel. It is impossible to associate me with something that I criticize,

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Every time you post something like this, and don't answer honest, fair questions, I win.

Let me know when you start asking honest or fair questions.

[Poptech]

Not really a loaded question, merely a request for an opinion, so that we can have some rational, reasonable basis for discussion.

A loaded question would take the form similar to the one you chose "Do you think your flawed reasoning...", i.e. it includes a starting assumption.

But that wasn't what I asked. There is no underlying assumption required to answer the question in a meaningful way.

It is simple, yes or no. It is a question that I can answer easily. "no", and I would hope that you would agree.

Fourth time.

Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?

I am not here for your entertainment.

2nd time.

When did you stop beating your wife?

[Poptech]

Not to interrupt the Poptech love-fest (which, thankfully, seems to be dying down a bit), can I again ask the question; when, according to their models, does the consensus say the planet will resume warming?

Do you understand you are "debating" brain-dead stoners who do not respect you and have no problem lying about anything? What part of they are laughing at you do you not understand?

[Wild Cobra]

Do citations metrics like "Impact Factor" take into account how something was cited? Regardless there are only 10 cites out of over 225 listed that were not positive and they are easy to spot on that list as they do not include a link.


Please stop spreading misinformation, I do not have a list of "anti-AGW scientific papers", I have a list of papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarmism. Again read the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section of the list,

Criticism: Papers on the list do not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.

OMG...

That flew so far over Fuzzy's head, his fur didn't even ruffle.