New study confirms climate models suck

Oh it's hilarious after all the threads about the pausebuster and the myth of the hiatus and years back all the alarmists saying the models included natural variability and claiming the anthropogenic signal dominated the climate. They can call me stupid all they want. Anyone with any sense can see the alarmists are on the ropes. The alarmists will never accept they are wrong. Never. They will die believing the catastrophe is just on the horizon. THE END IS NEAR!
 
Milagro said:
You're an arrogant shit. Can you tell me why one of most vociferous critics of the Pause and who wrote much of the stuff you now parrot in IPCC reports has now changed his mind?

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
Click to expand...
It always makes me smile when you, old, what's your science degree, telling others they are arrogant, funny stuff.
 
Milagro said:
But it's in Nature, why are you dissing it?

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

I didn't diss it. I didn't even click the link. I asked if the Republicans had peer reviewed the article using magic and religion techniques. That's not dissing the article, that's pointing out the irony of a Republicans using scientific literature only once, apparently when it suited the OP author.

Note the distinction.
 
Milagro said:
So you're back to your arrogant tosser mode, I'll bloody guarantee that you've never heard of Ben Santer, so really it should be you doing the shutting up!

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

Do you need a third shot at my tongue in cheek post to go with that third shot of whiskey?:shots:
 
Micawber said:
I didn't diss it. I didn't even click the link. I asked if the Republicans had peer reviewed the article using magic and religion techniques. That's not dissing the article, that's pointing out the irony of a Republicans using scientific literature only once, apparently when it suited the OP author.

Note the distinction.
Click to expand...

I've linked the IPCC AR5 so many times it's ridiculous. Section 9.2 deals with the hiatus if you wanna verify I know what I'm talking about. Go ahead, alarmist. You are the one that doesn't read the science.
 
Nomad said:
"New study" sponsored by Dow Chemical Corp. and Exxon Mobile.

Yeah, right.
Click to expand...
Do you just make shit up in your head?

here's some info from the link. Mann is a contributor. LOL

Abstract• References• Author information• Supplementary information

Affiliations

Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550, USA
Benjamin D. Santer, Giuliana Pallotta, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Ivana Cvijanovic & Stephen Po-Chedley
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma), Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 2Y2, Canada
John C. Fyfe & Gregory M. Flato
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA
Gerald A. Meehl
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, New South Wales 2052, Australia
Matthew H. England
National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK
Ed Hawkins
Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
Michael E. Mann
Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California 95401, USA
Carl Mears & Frank J. Wentz
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
Qiang Fu
Center for Satellite Applications and Research, NOAA/NESDIS, College Park, Maryland 20740, USA
Cheng-Zhi Zou
 
Micawber said:
I didn't diss it. I didn't even click the link. I asked if the Republicans had peer reviewed the article using magic and religion techniques. That's not dissing the article, that's pointing out the irony of a Republicans using scientific literature only once, apparently when it suited the OP author.

Note the distinction.
Click to expand...

So, was the article peer-reviewed or not?
 
The warmers don't even understand the relevance of this study. They'll cling to the sensitivity despite the models inability to hindcast. LOL
They know the science is right!
 
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!
 
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...
The Ars Technica article talks about the upper atmosphere whilst the Nature paper is addressing the troposphere. Poor confused Rana was unaware that they are not the same thing.

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...
Cypress is a pompous prat who just parrots the same crap over and over.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
Milagro said:
Well according to Micawber, Nature is the gold standard for scientific publication.

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

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.
 
Threedee said:
So, was the article peer-reviewed or not?
Click to expand...

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?"
 
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...
Jesus you really do spout a load of bollocks at times.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
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...

Ignorance is bliss.

:cig:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top