Lol at @Barry Rathbone, arguing with actual scientists using ‘things he’s read on the internet’ lollollol
Current Affairs Climate Change
- Thread starter Tipp blue
- Start date
- Status
It is the degree of "uncertainty" that is important it dictates what action (if any) should be taken and constructing global policy on models that are, let's be charitable - debatable - is lunacy. Only one, the Russian model, got the periods of fast warming in 1920–1940 and 1980–2000 as well as its slowdown in 1950–1975 and 2000–2014 correct maybe they got lucky
More paraphrasing from TV weather personality site, wattsupwiththat: They wrote: "All climate models fail to predict the weather or climate, with the possible exception of the Russian model INM-CM4." You can even do a google search for ["Russian model" lucky climate] and find where you paraphrased quotes to make you sound like you understand what's going on. Right on down to using the word "lucky"...
How is your anti-vax site quote-mining going?
Last edited:
No sciences are exact. Even the most simple models in Newtonian physics make assumptions (e.g., frictionless pulleys). Your emphasis on "hard science" or "exact science" is textbook pseudo-scientific strategy designed to make some scientific endeavors looks less useful than others (e.g., evolutionary biology versus chemistry, etc.). Pure nonsense.
How is your anti-vax site quote-mining going?
"
You do make me laugh with your frothing bluster about sources just because I exposed your inability to produce observational evidence for man made climate doom credo.
The ACTUAL source I used is below - it is the abstract of the Volodin and Gritsun paper.lol
To save you more embarrassment and reduce the risk of even more frothing I generously highlighted the words for you.
Your incandescent anger, lack of observational evidence and diversionary attack on sources tick every box of the climate fundamentalist handbook I bet you give teddy a darn good kicking every time I expose your nonsense.
Btw did I thank you for your last citation that excellently describes the issues with climate models? Don't think I did, nice one, champ.
"Abstract
Back to top
Climate changes observed in 1850–2014 are modeled and studied on the basis of seven historical runs with the climate model INM-CM5 under the scenario proposed for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). In all runs global mean surface temperature rises by 0.8 K at the end of the experiment (2014) in agreement with the observations. Periods of fast warming in 1920–1940 and 1980–2000 as well as its slowdown in 1950–1975 and 2000–2014 are correctly reproduced by the ensemble mean."
lol
To save you more embarrassment and reduce the risk of even more frothing I generously highlighted the words for you.
Your incandescent anger, lack of observational evidence and diversionary attack on sources tick every box of the climate fundamentalist handbook I bet you give teddy a darn good kicking every time I expose your nonsense.
More typical weak-argumentation. First, it is common to try to suggest one's opponent is being "emotive" or "frothing" full of "incandescent anger" as a means to suggest that they can't be objective. In reality, I'm not being emotive or frothing or manifesting "incandescent anger" I'm just writing words on the page. Your accusations of being "emotive" or "frothing" are even more curious when you end each sentence with an emoji or insert a "knock-out" boxing photo after your post, as you did above. This is quite juvenile. And your accusation of "incandescent anger" is also puzzling because you can't seem to write coherent sentences, perhaps suggesting a bit of emotion in your thoughts (e.g., "Your incandescent anger, lack of observational evidence and diversionary attack on sources tick every box of the climate fundamentalist handbook I bet you give teddy a darn good kicking every time I expose your nonsense." <--I have no idea what you are trying to say here)."
You do make me laugh with your frothing bluster about sources just because I exposed your inability to produce observational evidence for man made climate doom credo.
The ACTUAL source I used is below - it is the abstract of the Volodin and Gritsun paper.lol
To save you more embarrassment and reduce the risk of even more frothing I generously highlighted the words for you.
Your incandescent anger, lack of observational evidence and diversionary attack on sources tick every box of the climate fundamentalist handbook I bet you give teddy a darn good kicking every time I expose your nonsense.
Btw did I thank you for your last citation that excellently describes the issues with climate models? Don't think I did, nice one, champ.
"Abstract
Back to top
Climate changes observed in 1850–2014 are modeled and studied on the basis of seven historical runs with the climate model INM-CM5 under the scenario proposed for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). In all runs global mean surface temperature rises by 0.8 K at the end of the experiment (2014) in agreement with the observations. Periods of fast warming in 1920–1940 and 1980–2000 as well as its slowdown in 1950–1975 and 2000–2014 are correctly reproduced by the ensemble mean."
lol
As to the substance of your post, I'm aware of this paper, but what you failed to note was that others on wattsupwiththat had called this climate model "lucky" and you are parroting their words. But it seems that you have just admitted that models are useful, even going so far as to highlight the model correspondence to actual data. So now you are suggesting that models are useful. And that abstract also betrays something you can't seem to grasp in the last 40 or so exchanges we've had. Models are parameterized using observational data--they do not operate independent of data as you seem to imply with your ramblings about "empirical data" or "observational evidence."
You are not saving me any embarrassment. I'm not embarrassed or emotional about this topic despite your weak attempts to ascribe these qualities to me. What is very embarrassing and has not been addressed by you is your quote-mining from a known anti-vax site.
Last edited:
bignev23
Player Valuation: £35m
I suspect like with most things barely any of you know what you're talking about but you have become monumental biffs who talk like pseudo experts and become offended by anyone who disagrees with you, instead of just respectfully giving you're opinion and allowing others to freely express theirs. So for that reason I hope you all slowly cook to death cos it's what you deserve.
Why on earth would I be aware of that when quoting direct from the paper? Your judgement and powers of deduction are pure Inspector Clouseau.
If you had any class you would simply of apologised for yet another incorrect crass musing but as you didn't it's on to the naughty step for you.
Ciao baby
Lol at Baz. Still at it. Love how he litters his posts with big needless words to make his dumb arguments seem smart
Last edited:
If you run for office you can't go wrong with scintillating analysis like that, use this as your strap-line "IGNORANCE IS BLISS - BOMB SOMEONE- ANYONE"
I`m a big fan of his lunacy tbh.
Since Damo went to the great survivalist bunker in the sky, Barry is the loon that we`ve all been waiting for.
I believe you’ve put everyone on ignore who’s had the gall to disagree with your fairytales. lol
- Status