Study shows those who claimed climate debate over were wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monte_RCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Visit Google and type this in:

amazon+book+retired+scientists+against+ipcc

just copy that and paste it in.

LOTS of books about retired scientists against IPCC.

LOTS and LOTS of retired scientists against IPCC.

HUGE.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
What happens is that once the scientists retire and no longer are dependent on the government for their funding and salaries, they recant.

What you can do is to visit Google and type in " retired scientists against IPCC ".

Interesting disparity.
Click to expand...
That is a very unscientific statistic, because you only have the examples of scientists who did recant. How do you go about counting the scientists who did not recant? Can you google for “retired scientists who just went fishing”.?
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Visit Google and type this in:

amazon+book+retired+scientists+against+ipcc

just copy that and paste it in.

LOTS of books about retired scientists against IPCC.

LOTS and LOTS of retired scientists against IPCC.

HUGE.
Click to expand...
Googling for what you want to find is the worst possible way to do research. Whatever you are looking for, you can always find it.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
The models show temperature changes far more rapid than actual. AND, when the actual temperatures go down, the models show the temps as going up.
Click to expand...
Accuracy of a model is not dependent on short-term samples.
And with each passing year, the disparity between the models and actual become worse and worse.
Click to expand...
Of course. That is the nature of projections. No matter how accurate they are, the amount they diverge from the actual measurements always goes up with time.
Just look at the graph.
Click to expand...
And read the discussion points.
Click to expand...
Discussion points from random visitors to the blog? No thank you. I have enough keeping up with random visitors to CAF.
AND, the graph shows 95 different models and they all fail.
Click to expand...
What is your criterion for passing or failing? I’ll bet it is unreasonable.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Accuracy of a model is not dependent on short-term samples.

Of course. That is the nature of projections. No matter how accurate they are, the amount they diverge from the actual measurements always goes up with time.

Discussion points from random visitors to the blog? No thank you. I have enough keeping up with random visitors to CAF.

What is your criterion for passing or failing? I’ll bet it is unreasonable.
Click to expand...
In science, it only takes ONE exception to defeat a model or theory.

And we have many more than one that go against man-made global warming.

It’s not a vote thing.

This statement "No matter how accurate they are, the amount they diverge from the actual measurements always goes up with time." automatically invalidates the computer models.

Anyone can look at the graphic plots and see how the computer models have failed.

Game over.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
In science, it only takes ONE exception to defeat a model or theory.
Click to expand...
That depends on the theory. If the theory says “X causes Y all the time”, then one exception where X does not cause Y would invalidate that theory. But if the theory is probabilistic in nature, it cannot be defeated by one exception. Here is an example:

Theory: If you flip a coin 10 times, it will tend to land on heads 5 times more often than any other number…

Here is one exception: I flipped a coin 10 times, and it landed on tails all 10 times.

That one exception does not disprove the theory. But if you flipped the coin 10,000 times and it landed on heads all 10,000 times, that would put the theory in serious doubt, and I would begin to suspect that the coin was rigged with both sides tails.

Climate change predictions are also probabilistic. They have bands of uncertainty, expressed in statistical terms. Without a strong grounding in the science of statistics, it is hard to say if a theory is validated by a particular graph of data.
It’s not a vote thing.
Click to expand...
What’s that in answer to?
This statement "No matter how accurate they are, the amount they diverge from the actual measurements always goes up with time." automatically invalidates the computer models.
Click to expand...
Only if you don’t understand what it means for a probabilistic model to be invalidated.
Anyone can look at the graphic plots and see how the computer models have failed.
Click to expand...
If it is so obvious, please explain it to me in scientific or statistical terms.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That depends on the theory. If the theory says “X causes Y all the time”, then one exception where X does not cause Y would invalidate that theory. But if the theory is probabilistic in nature, it cannot be defeated by one exception. Here is an example:

Theory: If you flip a coin 10 times, it will tend to land on heads 5 times more often than any other number…

Here is one exception: I flipped a coin 10 times, and it landed on tails all 10 times.

That one exception does not disprove the theory. But if you flipped the coin 10,000 times and it landed on heads all 10,000 times, that would put the theory in serious doubt, and I would begin to suspect that the coin was rigged with both sides tails.

Climate change predictions are also probabilistic. They have bands of uncertainty, expressed in statistical terms. Without a strong grounding in the science of statistics, it is hard to say if a theory is validated by a particular graph of data.

What’s that in answer to?

Only if you don’t understand what it means for a probabilistic model to be invalidated.

If it is so obvious, please explain it to me in scientific or statistical terms.
Click to expand...
**No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
**
Albert Einstein

There have been at least 95 models.

The graphical results show that they have ALL failed.

At least 95 attempts have been made to prove man-made climate change.

Vast amounts of money and talent have been expended.

The onus … the burden of proof … is on those who have been trying to prove man-made climate change.

They have failed.

Not once.

Not twice.

They have failed at least 95 times.

There is no man-made climate change.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
**No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
**
Albert Einstein

There have been at least 95 models.

The graphical results show that they have ALL failed.

At least 95 attempts have been made to prove man-made climate change.

Vast amounts of money and talent have been expended.

The onus … the burden of proof … is on those who have been trying to prove man-made climate change.

They have failed.

Not once.

Not twice.

They have failed at least 95 times.

There is no man-made climate change.
Click to expand...
You seemingly did not read my response, because it answers your complaint completely.

If you don’t understand probability and statistics, get someone to teach you, or get a textbook like this one.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You seemingly did not read my response, because it answers your complaint completely.

If you don’t understand probability and statistics, get someone to teach you, or get a textbook like this one.
Click to expand...
No, not quite.

If it is probabilistic justification you seek, then go here.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

The problem is that Arctic and Antarctic ice extent(s) is (are) increasing.

Not decreasing.

The real world is not cooperating with the computer models.

And the retired scientists, no longer being dependent on a government paycheck, are willing to discuss it.

If anyone here is serious, they can visit www.energyadvocate.com

… scroll down for lots of free goodies …

and also subscribe to Dr. Howard Hayden’s newsletter.

[There are a number of places to visit. To avoid overwhelming readers, I will only post one a day.]
 
Monte_RCMS said:
The problem is that Arctic and Antarctic ice extent(s) is (are) increasing.
Click to expand...
Sea ice extent in the Arctic has been decreasing for several decades. Over those same decades, however, the Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing.
The real world is not cooperating with the computer models.
Click to expand...
Yes, well this is certainly accurate.

Ender
 
There are different kinds of science.

There is advocacy science, where the goal is to make a point … overlooking all objections.

Then there is altruistic science, where the scientist(s) commit self-abnegation to the point of scrupulosity. Or perhaps scrupulosity to the point of self-abnegation.

So for example, in the current example of arctic sea ice extent.

So, I have been following the ups and downs of arctic sea ice extent more or less continuously for several years.

The current “decline” seems strange, given that in the past, every time a number took a jump down, the “advocates” would jump up and yell out “ah ha!!”.

Well, in the current event, there are some issues to deal with.

One is the status of the solar sun spots.

Another is the issues involved with satellite measurements.

A third deals with El Nino and La Nina.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Based on observed fact.

Even the article you quoted by Roy Spencer shows you are wrong.

The models go up. The blue line goes up. What is the problem?
Click to expand...
Without wading into the specifics of this mess --does it matter how much each line goes up? If the model line goes up twice as much as the actual line–would you still say the model is accurate? What about three times or 10 times? Is the model still validated because they both go up? If the model predicts a rise in temperature of 1 degree but it only goes up .2 degrees are you claiming the model is valid because both went up? What about 2 degrees vs 1 degree or .5 degrees? Where do you draw the line? Even if both go up–how far apart do the up values have to be before you would acknowledge the model to be faulty?

Like wise to the other side --how close together does the up trend need to be before you would acknowledge the validity of the modeling?

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top