re: AGW Deniers - Seems Kind of Hopeless

quote:

---

Actually, it doesn't prove their hypothesis wrong, it proves that the models are inaccurate or that the input variables are inaccurate

---

Good god, and youre in compsci?

their models were designed based on their hypothesis. THAT"S THE BASIS FOR THE frickING MODEL, and why it was made....to test that hypothesis.

You really have no idea what you're discussing do you, spidey? It's a shame that you feel you need to lie about your education. You could actually get one instead.

quote:

---

their models were designed based on their hypothesis. THAT"S THE BASIS FOR THE frickING MODEL, and why it was made....to test that hypothesis.

---

I read your sentence to imply that the model's failure refute the theory of global warming in general. Slow your roll bro. Don't get so mad.

*edited to correct terms

quote:

---

I read your sentence to imply that the model's failure refute the hypothesis of global warming in general.

---

the models, and subsequently the hypothesis of CO2 as a driver of increasing temperatures, ARE WRONG.

Outside a 95% CI. wrong.

You mean the global warming that the IPCC has said is "paused", despite rising CO2 concentrations? That "warming"?

quote:

---

Don't get so mad.

---

Sadly, I'm not mad, but dismayed by the fact you are not smart enough to think for yourself...despite the data being freely available. Instead, you ask someone to tell you what it means that reality is outside the 95% CI for their models....not surprisingly they lie to you and tell you to "believe"

quote:

---

97% number seeming to be pretty accurate?

---

of what...papers?

science never has and NEVER will run on consensus. No matter how hard you "believe" it should.

ETA: You know who determined this "consensus"?

citizen scientists...crowd science on da web. Yeah, thats legit. BONJOUR!

Its sad at the level of ignorance in this nation

1) The 97% consensus is a myth

2) US temps have been cooling since before 1950, although the US has produced the most CO2 during that period. Thats almost 65 years, which is half of the timeframe in which we have recorded temps. HALF

3) EVERY computer model has been wrong about global warming since 1998. NOT ONE even close

4) The red spot (great strorm) on Jupiter has been decreasing, and temps on Mars have beeñ increasing during the same time that WE are causing our planet to warm. Yet there is no human activity to effect those other planets?

5) Archealogical finds have proven that the planet has been both warmer and cooler prior to mans industrial age

6) Warming didnt actually exist (see cooling scare of 1970) until we started tracking temps by satellite, and had to 'adjust' land based stations.

7) We heard the same garbage BS about the ozone hole. The ozone hole is currently twice the size that it was we we banned CFCs. We didnt fix that problem by our actions in 30 years


All of the above are documented facts, and you dont accept them. So what else has to be shown to you that will wake you out of your delusions?

quote:

---

the models, and subsequently the hypothesis of CO2 as a driver of increasing temperatures, ARE WRONG.

Outside a 95% CI. wrong.

---

This is a bullshite post for someone claiming to be a scientific authority. Given the ENORMOUS number of forcing variables to must go into a mother fricking climate model its an absolutely ridiculous assertion to claim that because current modeling is not accurate you can reasonably conclude that CO2 as A driver(not necessarily primary) of increasing temperature is wrong.

Shame shame.

quote:

---

This is a bull shite post for someone claiming to be a scientific authority. Given the ENORMOUS number of forcing variables to must go into a mother fricking climate model its an absolutely ridiculous assertion to claim that because current modeling is not accurate you can reasonably conclude that CO2 as A driver(not necessarily primary) of increasing temperature is wrong. 

Shame shame

---

Are you serious? The fact that none of their models correlate with their hypothesis says they are as wrong as one can get.

quote:

---

do you know what a 95% CI is, or how it gets calculated? do you know that as you increase the variability with all of these forcing variables your 95% CI gets BIGGER?

---

Sorry brothah but you just wrong on this one. Whether more forcing variables introduced increases CI or not (it does) has no fricking bearing on my point. My point is that because a model is wrong absolutely does NOT preclude carbon from being a driver. Thats a simple fact that runs contrary to your statement. Models, like science are wrong wrong wrong until they are right. Inaccurate models are just part of improving science. Deal with it bitch.



Im going to have to look at Spidey's post history now because you are cracking me up with this alter shite. I find it oddly flattering.

quote:

---

Whether more forcing variables introduced increases CI or not (it does) has no fricking bearing on my point.

---

you're changing your point then, spidey. I'm sorry you dont understand statistics and math.

quote:

---

My point is that because a model is wrong absolutely does NOT preclude carbon from being a driver.

---

It precludes their current hypothesis on anthropogenic sourced CO2 affecting the climate as a direct driver. You know how we know this? BECAUSE THATS WHAT THE MODELS WERE TESTING.

quote:

---

Models, like science are wrong wrong wrong until they are right. Inaccurate models are just part of improving science. Deal with it bitch.

---

So you admit the hypothesis is wrong, the models are wrong, and it's wrong.

YET....you, like a 5 year old in mid-december "believe".

Pathetic, you just stated why you shouldnt "believe", yet you turn around and argue for a "belief" IN SPITE OF THE EVIDENCE.

It's literally as stupid as the young-earthers decrying evolution.

quote:

---

I find it oddly flattering.

---

And theres your proof


Who else would be flattered to be compared to someone, until they had checked their post history?