16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

[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.

So your 1st attempt failed.

Now you confirm you have know clue how the 3 stooges,...IPCC, NOAA and NASA arrived at their conclusion that burning fossil fuels is what is solely responsible for the "claimed" unnatural global temp rise.

You also confirm you have no clue about the climate debate,...by your footer style of personal insults to mask your complete lack of understanding what the debate is even about.

But hey,...you'r fuji,...expected.

FAST

 

[fuji]

So your 1st attempt failed.

Now you confirm you have know clue how the 3 stooges,...IPCC, NOAA and NASA arrived at their conclusion that burning fossil fuels is what is solely responsible for the "claimed" unnatural global temp rise.

Nice try lying. Nobody had claimed fossil fuels were soley responsible for the rise in temperature. The correct and proven claim is that fossil fuels have caused a rise in temperature.

You utterly failed to comprehend the point about residuals so I see no point in listening to your nattering. When you have educated yourself, let's resume.

 

[Frankfooter]

Now you confirm you have know clue how the 3 stooges,...IPCC, NOAA and NASA arrived at their conclusion that burning fossil fuels is what is solely responsible for the "claimed" unnatural global temp rise.

How come Exxon funded research and Koch brothers research came to the same conclusions as the IPCC?
Obviously it has nothing to do with the funding.

 

[FAST]

Here's fuji,...

Nobody had claimed fossil fuels were soley responsible for the rise in temperature. The correct and proven claim is that fossil fuels have caused a rise in temperature.

You utterly failed to comprehend the point about residuals so I see no point in listening to your nattering. When you have educated yourself, let's resume.

Do you even read what you type,...

If you are what you call "educated",...thank god you'r not a teacher,...our kids are already fucked up enough.

Must be kind of degrading for you to have to copy groggy's habit of repeating the same word over and over again, when you learn a new one,...gets kind of monotonous, and boring, and a total waste of bandwidth.

FAST

 

[FAST]

How come Exxon funded research and Koch brothers research came to the same conclusions as the IPCC?
Obviously it has nothing to do with the funding.

Actually,...once again,...continuously,...you are WRONG,...I would try to explain it to you,...but,...you would have to have at least a minimum of intelligence,...so,...sorry.

FAST

 

[fuji]

Do you even read what you type,...

If you are what you call "educated",...thank god you'r not a teacher,...our kids are already fucked up enough.

Must be kind of degrading for you to have to copy groggy's habit of repeating the same word over and over again, when you learn a new one,...gets kind of monotonous, and boring, and a total waste of bandwidth.

FAST

You have absolutely nothing to add to this debate. You misrepresented what others said, then when called out, posted this garbage.

Please come back when you have something useful to share.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So can you explain how all the observed data fitting within the predictions makes those predictions 'spectacularly wrong'?

You're confusing predictions with model-run projections.

As for my conclusion, I can certainly explain it. The predictions are based on the mean of the model runs. The mean refers to the average of the model runs, not the bottom of the runs.

There hasn't been a single year in the 21st century where the observed data have aligned with the predictions.

The observed data have always been well below the predictions, to the point that it's questionable whether they will ever align. The predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And remember, each of those charts contains the projections and reality adjusted for the same baseline.

We were talking about the IPCC's predictions, not the model-run projections.

Going from the bottom to the top:

- Your IPCC graph doesn't even have the predictions, although it is clear that the observed data are well below the average of the runs. Even the 2015 point for the super El Nino year falls well below the calculated average of CMIP5, as you noted yesterday.

- The Gavin Schmidt graph shows the anomalies to be well below the predictions, even in 2015.

- Michael Mann is not a "legit" source. In any event, it's clear from the table that his depiction of the predictions has been adjusted -- those aren't the actual predictions.

Mann knows the observed data are well below what was predicted. Below is an actual graph from a published paper that included Mann as one of the contributors.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Interestingly, the discussion about different baselines proves the bigger point that I and others have been making.

-- The predictions are forever changing and are not clearly reported (the CMIP average isn't even included in the IPCC's graph).

-- There is no agreed-upon standard for the baseline for measuring anomalies.

-- There are no metrics for the falsification of the hypothesis.

Not only is the data retroactively rewritten to fit whatever story the climatologists like to tell, but the predictions are also retroactively "adjusted."

Climate research has a pretty tenuous relationship to real science.

 

[FAST]

You have absolutely nothing to add to this debate. You misrepresented what others said, then when called out, posted this garbage.

Please come back when you have something useful to share.

Called out by you and groggy,...ABSOLUTELY meaningless.

But go on thinking you and groggy have ever added anything of value to the debate,...but I guess being delusional helps you two.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually,...once again,...continuously,...you are WRONG,...I would try to explain it to you,...but,...you would have to have at least a minimum of intelligence,...so,...sorry.

FAST

In other words you can't.
Point made, privately funded research by the fossil fuel industry came to the same conclusions about climate change as government funded research.

 

[Frankfooter]

We were talking about the IPCC's predictions, not the model-run projections.

Going from the bottom to the top:

- Your IPCC graph doesn't even have the predictions, although it is clear that the observed data are well below the average of the runs. Even the 2015 point for the super El Nino year falls well below the calculated average of CMIP5, as you noted yesterday.

Really stupid fail.
It includes CMIP3 projections from AR4.
I can't believe you are really that bad at reading charts, any references to 'fails' should now start with this failure.
Stupid.

- The Gavin Schmidt graph shows the anomalies to be well below the predictions, even in 2015.

It shows the anomaly to be right on the dotted line of the adjusted projection in 2015, the adjustments are for those forcings they don't project, like volcanoes.
Fail again.

- Michael Mann is not a "legit" source. In any event, it's clear from the table that his depiction of the predictions has been adjusted -- those aren't the actual predictions.

Nice try, Michael Mann's work has been investigated and found solid, his work has been supported by multiple papers with similar results.
Again, you can't just say its wrong, you need to provide evidence and the research to back that up.

Mann knows the observed data are well below what was predicted. Below is an actual graph from a published paper that included Mann as one of the contributors.

Again, this is what Mann said about the paper you quoted:

Our study does NOT support the notion of a "pause" in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.
Our recent work (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831), which you fail to cite, indicates that the record warmth we are now experiencing can only be explained by human-caused global warming.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1040204106035791

Once again, three charts that show the projections to be accurate and your claims to those of someone who can't even read a chart, doesn't understand what it is the IPCC is projecting and then lied about the results of a paper.

You are wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Once again:

The IPCC graph doesn't actually show how the observed data compare with the predictions.

As for the Schmidt and Mann graphs, no one cares about "adjusted" predictions that have been rewritten after the fact to correct for all the things that were completely wrong.

The Schmidt graph confirms the actual predictions were wrong and the Mann graph doesn't show the actual predictions.

 

[Frankfooter]

Once again:

The IPCC graph doesn't actually show how the observed data compare with the predictions.

You really can't read a chart, can you?

This really sums up your level of comprehension that you would look at this chart and claim it doesn't show the observed data and IPCC projections.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This really sums up your level of comprehension that you would look at this chart and claim it doesn't show the observed data and IPCC projections.

Actually, what this sums up is your illiteracy.

I said it doesn't show "the predictions." The predictions are a solid line showing the average of the model runs. No such line appears in the IPCC graph.

 

[FAST]

In other words you can't.
Point made, privately funded research by the fossil fuel industry came to the same conclusions about climate change as government funded research.

You'r right,...for once,...as I already stated,...impossible to explain this to you,...considering your deficiencies.

As confirmation,...just what is the the fossil fuel industry's conclusions about climate change,...???

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually, what this sums up is your illiteracy.

I said it doesn't show "the predictions." The predictions are a solid line showing the average of the model runs. No such line appears in the IPCC graph.

No, it sums up your level of comprehension.
They don't make 'predictions', they make 'projections'.
Those projections are based around a range, not a single number. You refer only to the mean of those projections and then try to claim that if the observed data doesn't exactly match the mean then the projections are therefore 'spectacularly wrong'.

That just shows a total lack of comprehension about their projections, to judge their accuracy you have to see if the observed data fits within their range of projections, not the mean.

Total lack of comprehension.

 

[Frankfooter]

You'r right,...for once,...as I already stated,...impossible to explain this to you,...considering your deficiencies.

As confirmation,...just what is the the fossil fuel industry's conclusions about climate change,...???

FAST

Here, start with this statement from Exxon's research:

It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.

A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

That statements is similar to findings by government funded research.

 

[K Douglas]

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?

It is you that has the poor understanding. The IPCC stated their hypothesis that based on their research they have strong evidence that states that the majority of the warming of the planet since 1950 is man made. What should have happened was that scientists work to disprove that theory but instead governments only gave funding to those scientists willing to provide research that reinforced that hypothesis. And any scientist that did publish papers to disprove the theory were denied funding, passed over for tenure, mocked, ridiculed, threatened etc. Look at what Drs Willie Soon and Baliunas have had to endure.
The theory of man made global warming/climate change was never science driven. It was a political agenda from inception. Through the Club of Rome -> UNEP -> IPCC. You need to open your eyes and your mind. As Public Enemy once said "Don't Believe The Hype"

 

[Frankfooter]

It is you that has the poor understanding. The IPCC stated their hypothesis that based on their research they have strong evidence that states that the majority of the warming of the planet since 1950 is man made. What should have happened was that scientists work to disprove that theory but instead governments only gave funding to those scientists willing to provide research that reinforced that hypothesis. And any scientist that did publish papers to disprove the theory were denied funding, passed over for tenure, mocked, ridiculed, threatened etc. Look at what Drs Willie Soon and Baliunas have had to endure.
The theory of man made global warming/climate change was never science driven. It was a political agenda from inception. Through the Club of Rome -> UNEP -> IPCC. You need to open your eyes and your mind. As Public Enemy once said "Don't Believe The Hype"

That claim is bullshit.

As the post above, #338, shows even Exxon funded research found the same results. And surely if anyone would pay for research that would disprove AGW it would have been Exxon.
Clearly it wasn't an issue about who funded the research, it was just the findings of the research from multiple scientists.

That's called a consensus.

By the way, in the latest 'holy shit' type bad news, its been reported that 93% of the great barrier reef is now bleached. Or dead or dying.

‘And then we wept’: Scientists say 93 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef now bleached
A new report offers a dire prognosis for Australia’s spectacular Great Barrier Reef, were the vast majority of coral are suffering at least some bleaching.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...t-of-the-great-barrier-reef-now-bleached.html