New study confirms climate models suck

Micawber said:
I've noticed everyone who disagrees with you is pompous, just like everyone who disagrees with Sailor is destitute. LOL
Click to expand...

He is pompous, he never engages and just spouts the same old tired crap over and over. I have had many discussions with people who disagree with me, what I detest more than anything is when someone obviously has no handle on the science but just effectively cries consensus and think that is a winning strategy.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
Milagro said:
He is pompous he never engages and just spouts the same old tired crap over and over. I have had many discussions with people who disagree with me. I mean discussions not diatribes.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
Click to expand...

Something caused that mental instability of his/her/its. Would be interesting to find out what.
 
Micawber said:
Like I said, I didn't click it. Not sure I really want to do a JPP peer review session reading something I have no grounding in with a host of deniers who don't care that they don't have any either
Does it conclude "Rush was right all along?"
Click to expand...

LOL
You talk down from your high horse, demand peer reviewed science, and then refuse to look at it. You couldn't prove you're a religious alarmist any better if you tried.
 
Micawber said:
It wasn't my personal recommendation, but I certainly have the resources around me to ask. I simply put the question to a person who would know. I believe the response was three journals, Nature, Science and Cell for biological sciences and maybe one other. I think I can access it all using a pub med subscription. But these are not niche or discipline specific. If you were a geophysicist it might be Reviews of Geophysics. etc etc But if you made a major breakthrough there, that breakthrough might be published in a Nature caliber journal.

If you want to know, don't ask me, look up the rankings. But I'm not wrong, I asked a tenured science Prof at the number 2 ranked school in the country for that discipline who happened to be sitting next to me and those were the choices I was given as high impact and prestigious.
Click to expand...
I know already, just yanking you chain,!

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
tinfoil said:
They are afraid to address the study and instead link to arstechnica? LOL @ Cypress! Can't talk about the study himself, has to link some egghead rebuttal that no doubt obfuscates and conflates.

Why is Cypress afraid to discuss a peer reviewed article in Nature dated june 19 2017? I thought they loved current science!
Click to expand...

tinfoil said:
LOL
You talk down from your high horse, demand peer reviewed science, and then refuse to look at it. You couldn't prove you're a religious alarmist any better if you tried.
Click to expand...
You have to pay for the article, I didn't read it either because I couldn't.
 
tinfoil said:
LOL
You talk down from your high horse, demand peer reviewed science, and then refuse to look at it. You couldn't prove you're a religious alarmist any better if you tried.
Click to expand...

Call it learned helplessness. Denier threads are a very reliable disappointment, but since you are so insistent, I muscled through the abstract page. So, it appears these researchers whose affiliations are beyond reproach believe the difference between the modeled temps and the SAT observed temps since 2000 cannot be explained in a probabilistic sense with confidence above 9% or so. And they believe that the model needs some external forcing input tweak.

OK now what? Did they say global warming is over? Nope.
 
Milagro said:
He is pompous, he never engages and just spouts the same old tired crap over and over. I have had many discussions with people who disagree with me, what I detest more than anything is when someone obviously has no handle on the science but just effectively cries consensus and think that is a winning strategy.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
Click to expand...

Well, as I have explained as almost a confession to you every time, if one is not an expert, relying on consensus of experts is really all there is.

Assume I am wholly ignorant (I know, indulge me!) about, oh I don't know, special relativity. Assume I can't look it up and it is 1904. 99 physicists believe space and time are unrelated and this one little man with Don King hair sticking his tongue out says they are indivisible and related.

Who am I supposed to believe. Just because I could be wrong about global warming doesn't mean it would be rational to be a denier.

I don't understand the science, I've never dug an ice core, my interferometry skills are a bit rusty, and my naval buoys aren't chirpsounding the data right now. So I'm going with the guys who do do all that shit. They all seem to agree. And none of them need their BP stock price to soar for a bonus this fiscal year.
 
Micawber said:
Well, as I have explained as almost a confession to you every time, if one is not an expert, relying on consensus of experts is really all there is.

Assume I am wholly ignorant (I know, indulge me!) about, oh I don't know, special relativity. Assume I can't look it up and it is 1904. 99 physicists believe space and time are unrelated and this one little man with Don King hair sticking his tongue out says they are indivisible and related.

Who am I supposed to believe. Just because I could be wrong about global warming doesn't mean it would be rational to be a denier.

I don't understand the science, I've never dug an ice core, my interferometry skills are a bit rusty, and my naval buoys aren't chirpsounding the data right now. So I'm going with the guys who do do all that shit. They all seem to agree. And none of them need their BP stock price to soar for a bonus this fiscal year.
Click to expand...
They don't all seem to agree that just bullshit, I believe I gave you a very long list of climate scientists, physicists and other eminent scientists who do not agree. Stop spouting nonsense all the time.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top