Reply With Quote
You of all people posting this? is rolling in his grave.
It is science fiction. However, we have learned that science fiction sometimes comes true.
Good enough answer for you?
You of all people posting this? is rolling in his grave.
Why?
Because Darrin is correct that the IPCC is wrong, because most of their their models are wrong?
I don't give a rat's ass about the IPCC or their models. This is about Darrin and his cherrypicking in general. It's akin to an arsonist having posted a you-tube vid about fire safety.
So you still basing that on the UAH equatorial readings vs the whole ocean models? you left the thread the last time I pointed it out. Are you going to do your typical intellectually dishonest coward routine?
Dance, who's dancing. Here's a little number for you. Some more "consensus".
'I Recant' Says Author of Infamous Seventies Newsweek 'Global Cooling' Article
The author of a much-quoted 1975 Newsweek article predicting catastrophic global cooling now says it was a big mistake and the earth was warming all along. (H/T Climate Depot)
Peter Gwynne, began his piece by declaring portentously:
"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth."
And this wasn't just a minority opinion, he went on to stress:
"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in their view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."
But now Gwynne has decided that this certainty was misplaced:
"While the hypotheses described in that original story seemed right at the time, climate scientists now know that they were seriously incomplete. Our climate is warming -- not cooling, as the original story suggested,"
Gwynne is apparently sick and tired of having the article rubbed in his face by "websites and individuals that dispute, disparage and deny the science that shows that humans are causing the Earth to warm." Especially painful for him - it seems - was the occasion when his piece was triumphantly brandished by comedian (and notorious skeptic) Dennis Miller on the Tonight Show in 2006.
Luckily, Gwynne is in no danger of being made to look a fool twice. He has now chosen to place his faith in the expertise of perhaps the most widely respected, uncontroversial figures in the entire field of climate science - a man he quotes approvingly throughout his recantation.
"There's no serious dispute any more about whether the globe is warming, whether humans are responsible, and whether we will see large and dangerous changes in the future – in the words of the National Academy of Sciences – which we didn't know in the 1970s," said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. He added that nearly every U.S. scientific society has assessed the evidence and come to the same conclusion.
Gwynne concludes by sounding a warning note on the dangers of science writers failing to ask the right questions and reporting over-enthusiastically on the latest scare story.
"If I had applied those lessons back in 1975, I might not now be in the embarrassing position of being a cat's paw for denial of climate change," he says ruefully.
Indeed. But at least Gwynne has learned his lesson. Now that he believes in global warming - as all the experts do - no one is ever going to take him again for a gullible idiot who has failed to perform his due diligence on one of the most important scientific issues of the day.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...ooling-article
You just gotta love it. Guess he wasn't getting any research money.
so s bag site Breitbart is now supporting AGW?
btw, the "global cooling guy from 1975" cherry picked by BigCarbon propagandists to deny AGW parallels BigPharma and the entire medical industry cherry picking a single, debunked cholesterol study from the 1950s to construct the $100Bs cholesterol scam, ongoing.
So, what are your thoughts about IPCC projections vs reality?
That Feynman video seemed to strike a nerve.
This article reminds me of SpursTalk "Why I think Climate Change denial........."
A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-971033.html
A long article, hence, I didn't post the complete thing. But very interesting.
The scientist joined a political group after arguments about his paper? Bravo...
Thats not the way you do science; good papers, well done and peer reviewed that are contrary, can be absolutely invaluable. I have seen some very bizarre well done papers reviewed that pose some very interesting questions and ARE published and cherished because they open up new avenues of work.
This example did not. Do you actually understand the criticism coming from both sides?
Do you understand what I posted? Oh, never mind, I forgot you are an expert on science.
It's not long and it goes to the heart of things very quickly. He went to go work for the oil companies at GWPC. You seem to be on their mailer because you certainly spam this thread with their . You familiar with the notion of a shill and how they are typically regarded?
Or do you really think that taking money from the oil lobby doesn't compromise one's objectivity?
Yes I do.Do you understand what I posted? Oh, never mind, I forgot you are an expert on science.
Yes I have to live by what a particular type of science finds. I have to be as close to correct as possible or most of what I do is ed. I can't be an old man sitting around spewing forth what fits his political agenda.... Because, if it's not right, what I do will NOT work.
Do you get that? I need good answers. Not what some old man wants the answers to be.
Modified for X-ray forecasts.
What part of my post is political, dummy. Read what I said. Not what you think I said. If you are a scientist then no wonder we are is so much trouble in this country. Damn like talking to a child.
I have read your posts.
Its clear where they are directed.
You don't care where most evidence points.
It matters a whole bunch to you and I but you like being lied to because it makes you comfortable.
You look ONLY for articles that support your notions and politics.
Go read your before I die post again.
Last edited by pgardn; 05-24-2014 at 07:57 PM.
I am talking to a child.
You are not talking to anyone.
You have a love for CO2. I suggest dry ice.
Last edited by pgardn; 05-24-2014 at 11:26 PM.
If I have a computer model for coin flips that simply goes off of them being 50/50 that is off after 20 flips and because we went 15-5 is it composed of bad science or is it simply not accurate over one trial due to short term variability?
If the models are off 50-100 years from now, then by all means declare the models wrong. Of course a few hot years such as the kind we're about to have with a strong El Nino (barring a volcanic eruption or other short term negative forcing event) and we'll be above the mean set by the IPCC. We're well within the range currently and it won't take much at all to get us to the upper range. The models were never intended to account for variability on the annual or decadal scale but on the century long time scales but that isn't important to people who want to cast doubt. The fact that even with a period of slower warming in the atmosphere we've begun to have serious consquences to climate change isn't important to people like you.
Its sad because you'd rather try to play a slimy middle ground where when the IPCC turns out to be absolutely correct 30 years from now you'll claim you supported them all along and you can't believe people didn't do anything. History is going to look down upon so many people and their idiotic positions.
I'll admit, 17 years is not a long time. Lol "one trial".
We'll all be dead -- how convenient. How about if the models are still off in 20 years, we can declare that they suck?
No.
Speaking of "slimy", Bill Nye couldn't even demonstrate AGW in a lab, so he photoshopped his thermometer at 1:10.
Yeah you will Darrin. Just like you claim that you never say its not warming then post that says its not warming. You're the definition of talking out of both sides of your mouth.
What do you expect from someone with an honorary PHD?
There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 8 guests)
Posting Permissions