Show me where I wrote that your wacko definition of legit is what I agreed to.
Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
AK lost most of his legitimacy some time back, so I can understand GROGGY's misstep. What you're trying to say is GROGGY didn't really say what is claimed.This has been a long thread, so perhaps you missed the joke.
Earlier in the thread, Groggy had posted some blather from the IPCC website that he didn't understand, and then dared AK-47 and I to try to explain it. After some back and forth, AK-47 posted some cut-and-paste information, interspersed with nonsense, and said it was his explanation.
It was, by AK-47's own admission, complete gibberish.
However, Groggy -- not realizing it was gibberish (AK-47 had shared the details with me privately) -- said that AK-47 had "got most of it."
No, actually, what I'm saying is Groggy tried to speak with authority about a piece of writing that he didn't understand. He didn't understand the information he originally posted, nor did he understand AK-47's reply.
He didn't get any of it. But he tried to make it look like he did. He got punk'd.
Posts 513 and 514. You quoted my definition of "legit", then said you accepted. Here's the full exchange:
Your reply of "Ok" constitutes acceptance of the terms, particularly when you followed it with "the bet is on".
You accepted the terms of the bet. You lost.
No.
What happened is I skimmed ak's post, as it was a day like today where I'm busy and posting from my phone. To put it to rest I'll summarize the footnote and try to explain why creationists aren't legit scientists later tonight.
Until then, either show me where I agreed to your wacko definition of legit or be prepared to work from an accepted definition.
You can order the book tomorrow.
I did. The terms of the bet were clear, and you accepted. Your response to the terms I set, including the definition of "legit": "Ok, the bet is on."
I gather you do a lot of skimming and don't necessarily read the posts you are responding to. Too bad. This isn't skepticalscience.com. You don't get to rewrite the terms of the bet after you have already lost.
The terms of the agreed-upon bet have been met, in full.
You lost. Stop being such a baby about it.
Not quite. What it shows is that while a few models got it right, the overwhelming majority got it wrong and many were spectacularly wrong. Furthermore, it doesn't change the fact that the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.
The University of Hamburg also looked into the models, and found that 98 per cent of the models failed to predict the pause.
What I find interesting in the study you cited is that you don't appear to have read the conclusion:
Agreed. The author is definitely right when he says there is "much we don't understand about the many different factors impacting Earth's climate system, especially over periods as short as a decade."
We don't know how man-made carbon dioxide emissions might affect the climate. It's only something that might (or might not) be determined over a long period of time. Much, much longer than the IPCC has been studying the issue. That means the IPCC's speculation and predictions are baseless.
From where I stand GROGGY has a better grasp of a number of things, the scientific methods of research for one. He may have given you an out by not handling the 'legit' point well, possibly suggesting credible instead, but it still doesn't take away the fact that the three researchers you offered up are really not great. Mind you, as pointed out, they aren't alone in denier circles.
Oh boy, a ringing endorsement from dumbrock.
It doesnt get any better then that :biggrin1:
My bet was that you couldn't name three legit climatologists who disputed the findings of the IPCC or the existence of anthropogenic climate change. We've already discovered that your definition of legit is seriously fucked up, because you are already only using material paid for by the Heartland Institute types and other oil lobbyists. We've also established that you can't understand the science or read the full reports, in short, you have no idea of what a legitimate scientist or climatologist is, just as you have no clue about the scientific process.
In other words, your definition, which you added after you accepted the bet, is fucked up and not relevant.
Legitimate climatologists do serious research, come up with theories, examine the evidence and then write reports in peer assessed journals. Peer assessed means that other scientists and climatologists will read the paper and offer serious criticisms. If its full of shit, they call it, if there's a flaw in the process or incomplete evidence, the call it. That's the judgement, does the work pass the sniff test of the people who spend their lives working on this shit.
Here's a good recent example for you. Remember the Zamboni MS treatment that was all the rage a few years ago? He proposed that putting stunts in veins in the necks of those with MS would increase the blood flow and cure MS. He's a much better doctor in all likelihood, then your creationist fool, but its a good corollary. His theory was very much contrary to traditional medicine and there was a rush for people to try it. But the problem was it didn't pan out when put through proper testing and experiments. That is an example of something that failed the peer assessment.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/zamboni-ms-vein-theory-debunked-by-study-1.1930041
The shit you keep reading, and the people you keep quoting, like your creationist 'scientist' are the kind of people whose work is so shoddy that they are too embarrassed to put it into the peer assessment world, and when they do, its shredded and exposed as shoddy crap. That's the measurement of whether they are legit, not the fact that they had a degree and got hired by some university and due to their tenure status are still there.
I fully expect you to not accept this, because your logic is also so shoddy that you don't understand the science, the scientific method or the writings of those you try to read.
Now, onto the IPCC report. First, you are still full of shit in your continual harping on previous reports, it again underlines the fact that you don't understand the scientific method nor the way the research works. Climatologists are constantly reviewing their own work, add forcings to models and comparing predictions based on a number of inputs to see which ones reflect real world results. So each report gets more and more accurate. Its precisely this that's written about in the footnote of death, the one you can't understand. They talk of the different models run by different teams under different scenarios as well as the factors that could change the real world results not included in the models.
First, your Heartland papers all use cherry picking, starting from the warmest year on record and ending before 2013, which was the fourth warmest year on record, in order to find a small window where the temperature line wasn't increasing as much as before (though still within prediction guidelines). And remember, during this time global surface temperatures were still increasing, just not as much as before, so the pause wasn't a pause in warming, only a small slowing of the rate of increase.
Second, the climate models are always being bettered, just as you get new software updates (or are you still running DOS because you don't believe in the scientific method?). In the footnote they talk of possible natural forcings that can't be predicted, so aren't in the models. One of the two main ones they are looking into is the release from small scale volcanoes.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/small-volcanic-eruptions-add-to-larger-impact-on-climate-17112
No matter how detailed your models, you can't include volcanoes as we have no way to accurately predict them. That's in the footnote, go read it.
The second unpredictable change has been related to previous predictions of extreme weather. One of the main examples of climate change we are living through right now is the increase in extreme weather events.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons/fcons1.asp
For instance, the crazy winter this year is related to unprecedented changes in the polar vortex. More relevant to this discussion is the change to trade winds, which have increased quite drastically and caused more waves which stirred them up and pushed a lot of the air temperature heat into the lower parts of the ocean.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-ocean-study
Now, the footnote of death didn't mention a possible increase in trade winds and ocean temperature, but they did talk of volcanoes and other natural forcings that may alter the real world temperatures and weren't presently included in climate models. Increases to trade winds are now included, but not volcanoes since you can't predict them.
Now were you to read and understand the full IPCC reports instead of looking for summaries in bold text or coloured blocks, you'd also realize that with the range of predictions that the IPCC also gives confidence values with every prediction. This means that they understand that shit happens and their predictions aren't written in stone. They will say we think that this is the range of outcomes most likely with these inputs (CO2 for example) and we have X% confidence in our predictions. In other words, while you are all 'they said 0.2 degrees per decade', that's not what or how they said it. That's their best prediction unless shit happens (like volcanoes and other extreme climate changes). They are so much more nuanced, detailed and careful with their predictions. You won't ever see a climatologist making the kind of shit predictions you think they did, in other words.
And that, my friend, is because you don't and can't read the full reports, can't judge what a legit scientist is, can't judge the work they do because you don't understand it, and refuse to accept that a few quacks paid by lobbyists and hackers who refuse to put their work out in the public aren't legit.
So once again.
You can't tell creationists from scientists and have lost this bet.
That is a lie.
I did not add anything after the fact. Go back and read posts 513 and 514 for yourself -- in post 514, you quoted the terms of the bet, including the agreed-upon definition of "legit", in the same post where you accepted the bet.
(And don't try pulling any revision history on your own post. In the interests of "science," I captured a screen shot of the page -- specifically post 514 where you quoted the terms of the bet before you accepted it.)
The terms were clear and you accepted them. The terms of the bet were met, in full.
You lost. Lying won't change that fact.
If Groggy had been sincere, he would have asked me to name three leading scientists who don't support the IPCC's findings.
Of course, that would be easy.
And one of the false messages that Groggy's propaganda websites like to promote is that no one other than publicly funded "climatologists" are allowed to have an expert view on the matter. The fact that most publicly funded climatologists can only get money to do research if they back the theory doesn't seem to bother Groggy and the propagandists.
Their phony position allows Groggy and his propagandist friends to dismiss the brilliant scientists (much more brilliant than his fake "Nobel laureates") who do understand the issue and are skeptical.
I was on to Groggy's intellectually phony game and his assertion that my list of researchers who don't back the IPCC had to be climatologists. That was why I set very clear terms for the bet before I agreed to it.
Do I think the three scientists I cited are among the world's best? Nope. But the most brilliant scientists who have weighed in on this matter -- on either side -- aren't climatologists. Blame Groggy -- not me -- for the fact we are focused on climatologists.
Too bad for Groggy that he skimmed the terms of the bet before he accepted it. He lost.
Still waiting for MF to explain his conspiracy theory belief that the vast majority of climate scientists are lying for political reasons.
Not true, any expert can have an expert opinion, but not all can offer a creditable opinion. The data speaks clearly what happening. The graphs are clear. When some try to micro interpret the data as in the 1922 argument, the hockey stick graph, or the unexpected winter weather, which more often than not, don't hold up to close examination. When the AR4 data was put forwards and the predictions were made, there was no way of knowing about medicating factors like the economic slow down, or volcanic activity, both of which affected resulting data. When these anomalies hit the headline experts pop out if the woodwork and yell, SEE! One chart that was offered earlier that took into account the various anomalies over ~200 years and the obvious trend is quite clear. The levels are going higher and at a faster rate over time, not one season, not one year and even nor one cherry picked cycle of 16 years.
It not a case of the three scientists being the best, that's impossible to gauge, but they aren't anywhere near the best and their noted statements show it.
No. It's sad, actually, that it has reached the point where he has to resort to lying to try to justify his welching on the bet.
I don't know what he's so upset about, anyway.
He may not be happy that he lost but he would probably learn something from Delingpole's book (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books...ome&gcs_requestid=0CMCpsd2Khr0CFYnx5wodsUwAAA). Groggy should stop pouting and embrace this opportunity.
You're saying they're not great because they don't have fake "Nobel Peace Prizes"?
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/26/9000-nobel-pretenders/
No, I made it quite clear they are not great based on their noted climate claims. The 9000 Nobel Prize winners is news to me and it certainly puts the group in a different light, now let's look at their research. It stands up very well. Those that did make this claim have been admonished by the IPCC quite strongly. Somehow I doubt the next group of authors of AR5, many of them new contributors, will make the same mistake.
The chair of the IPCC was admonished quite strongly? Perhaps, but that's news to me.
The only one that I know of who was slapped down (somewhat) was Michael Mann, and only after he brought tremendous ridicule upon the IPCC and himself.
Don't worry, it's coming. I'll post it this evening.
(And, given that your series of misrepresentations continues, it looks like I'll have to quote a description of what was actually said, that you claimed -- and have repeatedly claimed -- represents a "conspiracy theory.")
