16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

[FAST]

ACTUAL SCIENCE,...is NOT job creation,...

The only ones approaching this from a religious, faith based perspective here are you, MF, along with CM.

The two of you think that if you repeat your dogmatic mantra over and over that is an argument. You reject actual science. You avoid statistical analysis and make anecdotal arguments. You cherry pick years to deny trends that are clear in any proper analysis--claiming there was no warming by comparing the hottest year in the last decade to the present, rather then rolling averages.

Meanwhile there's very clear evidence that the planet is earning and that human activity is a major factor in that warming.

Science,...is a systematic enterprise that using mathematics and measurement, creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable observations, explanations and predictions about the universe.

ACTUAL SCIENCE,...is NOT creating an untestable THEORY.

People,...you'v got to stop breathing out all that nasty CO2,...I mean we are have grown by 7 times from about 1900,...just stop,...Oh and,...while you'r at it,...stop eating plants that covert CO2 to O2, and,...why don't you all use solar cells to heat your house at night in the dead of winter.

Come on people, just stop living,...and everything will be just fine,...except those who are employed by government climate agencies,...you can still go flying around the globe having parties.


FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

Another chart with 2015 smack dab in the middle of the (forcings adjusted) mean.

The mean is the solid black line.

All of the 21st century temperature anomalies on that graph -- including 2015 -- are well below the solid black line.

The graph reaffirms what all the other graphs have shown: The IPCC's predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Ok, if you prefer (though bishop always whines when I use CMIP5, there's no pleasing some people...)

Actually, I have no issue with you using Ed Hawkins' rendition of the CMIP3 graph, as it also confirms the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

But let's not make it sound like it was "updated" by the IPCC.

 

[Frankfooter]

Come on people, just stop living,...and everything will be just fine,...except those who are employed by government climate agencies,...you can still go flying around the globe having parties.


FAST

Hey not so fast, did you not notice that the scientists under the pay of Exxon found exactly the same results as the scientists paid by governments?
Did you not notice that the scientists the Koch brothers paid came out with the same findings as those government employed scientists?

Your claim is stupid and debunked.

 

[Frankfooter]

The mean is the solid black line.

All of the 21st century temperature anomalies on that graph -- including 2015 -- are well below the solid black line.

The graph reaffirms what all the other graphs have shown: The IPCC's predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

The dotted line represents the mean adjusted for things that you can't predict, like volcanoes.
That is the accurate representation of the accuracy of those projections.

Right on the money.
Loser.

 

[Frankfooter]

But let's not make it sound like it was "updated" by the IPCC.

Its a representation of the IPCC AR5 chart updated with the most recent data.
If you want a way to judge the accuracy of those IPCC projections (other then the bet you lost), its an excellent choice.

 

[FAST]

Hey not so fast, did you not notice that the scientists under the pay of Exxon found exactly the same results as the scientists paid by governments?
Did you not notice that the scientists the Koch brothers paid came out with the same findings as those government employed scientists?

Your claim is stupid and debunked.

And just what "claim" was that,...or are you just in your usual troll mode,...with NOTHING concrete to add,...as usual.

When you have something intelligent to post,...then I will respond,...other wise,...STFU.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

The dotted line represents the mean adjusted for things that you can't predict, like volcanoes.

I see.

So you're saying the predictions don't look quite so bad -- once they are retroactively "adjusted" to correct for all the things they got completely wrong.

I love it. :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

If you want a way to judge the accuracy of those IPCC projections ... its an excellent choice.

Indeed.

The original version of that graph appeared in the IPCC AR5 document that reported the models had a 97% failure rate (according to the IPCC, only three out of 111 model runs correctly predicted the Earth's temperature trends).

Putting aside the super El Nino weather phenomenon in 2015, your "updated" graph shows the Earth's temperature continued to be stagnant in 2013 and 2014, with temperature anomalies still at the absolute bottom of the model-run projections (and nowhere near the mean).

Actually, the Hawkins graph shows the same thing as the graph that I posted (pictured below). My graph is just much easier to understand.

Both graphs confirm the IPCC's predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

 

[fuji]

The graph below appeared in Nature and was part of an article by climate researchers -- including some lead IPCC authors -- confirming there was a significant mismatch between what was predicted and the temperature trends that were actually observed in the 21st century.

Sure. And an EVEN LARGER mismatch between your prediction and theirs. So their model has more predictive power than yours does, you lose, they win, end of debate.

 

[fuji]

Science,...is a systematic enterprise that using mathematics and measurement, creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable observations, explanations and predictions about the universe.

ACTUAL SCIENCE,...is NOT creating an untestable THEORY.

People,...you'v got to stop breathing out all that nasty CO2,...I mean we are have grown by 7 times from about 1900,...just stop,...Oh and,...while you'r at it,...stop eating plants that covert CO2 to O2, and,...why don't you all use solar cells to heat your house at night in the dead of winter.

Come on people, just stop living,...and everything will be just fine,...except those who are employed by government climate agencies,...you can still go flying around the globe having parties.


FAST

A hypothesis is evaluated based on the quality of its predictions. So far the human caused global warming hypothesis has correctly predicted the data BETTER THAN the alternative hypothesis that humans did not cause global warming.

There's a risk that this next statement will fly over your head, so you may need to educate yourself in order to understand it if you're unfamiliar with regression techniques: The residual in the human causation model is large indicating that there are other factors that we don't yet understand, that operate in addition to human causation. But the regressors associated with human causation are statistically significant and positive.

In plainer English, that means human caused global warming is strongly supported by the data and has successfully predicted the data well enough to be proven, despite the fact that there are still a lot of other factors influencing climate that we don't yet understand.

 

[basketcase]

Nice try....

Funny thing is you kept posting that same data when you thought it supported you point. Now that the past several years have been included you suddenly run away from it.

 

[FAST]

A hypothesis is evaluated based on the quality of its predictions. So far the human caused global warming hypothesis has correctly predicted the data BETTER THAN the alternative hypothesis that humans did not cause global warming.

There's a risk that this next statement will fly over your head, so you may need to educate yourself in order to understand it if you're unfamiliar with regression techniques: The residual in the human causation model is large indicating that there are other factors that we don't yet understand, that operate in addition to human causation. But the regressors associated with human causation are statistically significant and positive.

In plainer English, that means human caused global warming is strongly supported by the data and has successfully predicted the data well enough to be proven, despite the fact that there are still a lot of other factors influencing climate that we don't yet understand.

Obviously English is not you'r 1st language,...and/or you copy and paste a la groggy,...and don't read or understand what you have just posted.

Hypothesis,..."a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation".

And a little more help for ya,...just because other hypothesis are not pursued,... does not make the chosen one the only possible one.

As you have stated,... "there are other factors that we don't yet understand",...but probably more correctly,...do not fit the desired result.

And still no possible way to test the "chosen" hypothesis,...which is what REAL science does.

You also fail to identify how humans are causing the so called, global warming, without indicating HOW humans are the only causation, your grand proclamations are useless.

FAST

 

[K Douglas]

The only ones approaching this from a religious, faith based perspective here are you, MF, along with CM.

The two of you think that if you repeat your dogmatic mantra over and over that is an argument. You reject actual science. You avoid statistical analysis and make anecdotal arguments. You cherry pick years to deny trends that are clear in any proper analysis--claiming there was no warming by comparing the hottest year in the last decade to the present, rather then rolling averages.

Meanwhile there's very clear evidence that the planet is earning and that human activity is a major factor in that warming.

Contrary to your assertion it is the alarmist crowd who reject real science. The scientific method dictates that science is supposed to work to disprove theories not reinforce them. Making broad statements such as "the science is settled" or that claiming those who disagree with the imaginary consensus are 'deniers' or 'mentally ill' (as Clooney thinks) does a great disservice to the progression of humanity.

 

[basketcase]

Contrary to your assertion it is the alarmist crowd who reject real science. The scientific method dictates that science is supposed to work to disprove theories not reinforce them. Making broad statements such as "the science is settled" or that claiming those who disagree with the imaginary consensus are 'deniers' or 'mentally ill' (as Clooney thinks) does a great disservice to the progression of humanity.

You have a poor understanding.

A scientific theory is accepted if it is the BEST at explaining observations. If a theory is better able to explain those observations, it replaces the previous theory.

Do you have a better theory that explains the observations?

 

[fuji]

Obviously English is not you'r 1st language,...and/or you copy and paste a la groggy,...and don't read or understand what you have just posted.

Hypothesis,..."a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation".

And a little more help for ya,...just because other hypothesis are not pursued,... does not make the chosen one the only possible one.

As you have stated,... "there are other factors that we don't yet understand",...but probably more correctly,...do not fit the desired result.

And still no possible way to test the "chosen" hypothesis,...which is what REAL science does.

You also fail to identify how humans are causing the so called, global warming, without indicating HOW humans are the only causation, your grand proclamations are useless.

FAST

Holy crap, I thought the regression bit would go over your head. It never occurred to me that you lacked even a basic understanding of the scientific method.

Science ALWAYS operates by testing a hypothesis against its null hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis that humans caused global warming is tested against the hypothesis that they don't.

Really don't join this debate. It'll just wind up being me educating you and I don't feel like doing that.

The part you didn't even remotely comprehend about the regressors vs residuals explained how you can prove that one factor is significant even when there are other unknown and unmeasured factors that have a greater influence. That you don't understand the concept doesn't make it untrue, it just makes you ignorant of the concept.

 

[Frankfooter]

I see.

So you're saying the predictions don't look quite so bad -- once they are retroactively "adjusted" to correct for all the things they got completely wrong.

I love it. :biggrin1:

Got wrong?
The IPCC doesn't 'predict' volcanoes.
You can't get wrong what you don't do, loser.

 

[Frankfooter]

Putting aside the super El Nino weather phenomenon in 2015, your "updated" graph shows the Earth's temperature continued to be stagnant in 2013 and 2014, with temperature anomalies still at the absolute bottom of the model-run projections (and nowhere near the mean).
.

So now your claim that the IPCC is wrong is down to them being wrong on only two years.
That's what you call 'spectacularly wrong'?
What an arse.

So far their record beats the pants off of your record, where you have been found to have lied about studies and failed miserably to predict the temperature of 2015, where the IPCC did much better. Even your claims they are wrong have come down to only two years, talk about backing down from your claims.

Loserville.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sure. And an EVEN LARGER mismatch between your prediction and theirs.

My prediction?

 

[Moviefan-2]

(By the way, when you discount the super El Nino, that graph you posted shows the Earth's temperature was stagnant to the end of 2014 and the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong. Well done. :thumb

Funny thing is you kept posting that same data when you thought it supported you point. Now that the past several years have been included you suddenly run away from it.

"Run away from it"?

Try reading my quote above a little more closely. Franky's "updated" IPCC graph shows the same thing as the graph that I posted -- that the IPCC's predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong. I applauded him for posting it.

And that's consistently and spectacularly wrong throughout the 21st century so far, not just for "two years."

(As an aside, I'm thinking about revisiting that discussion we had last summer about the IPCC graph. Rather than dwelling on my quotes, you might want to think about what you said. I'll tell you this -- if I do decide to get into it, it will be worthy of its own thread. :thumb