I laid out the bet.
I said legit scientist and you came back with a creationist who thinks god controls the climate and you claim he's a 'legit' scientist.
I note that you can't respond to any of the points I made and went back to your talking points.
I'll repeat them again until you do read them and respond.
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/zambon...tudy-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/s...-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/environme...ic-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.
