No, it's proof that you continually look for a point that is different than the one I was making when I cited the reference. The article does say the pause began in January 1997 (according to Met Office data), which was my point in the earlier post.More proof, not that we need more, that you don't read articles fully. You stop at the point that you think supports your position.
Sure.No, it's proof that you continually look for a point that is different than the one I was making when I cited the reference. The article does say the pause began in January 1997 (according to Met Office data), which was my point in the earlier post.
It's similar to Groggy's attempts to confuse paraphrasing with direct quotes. Anything to try to divert attention from the reality that the computer-model predictions were spectacularly wrong.
Yes it is.I'm afraid that isn't supported by the first four paragraphs in the article.
If he was being so deliberate, why did he also repeatedly use the word "plateau"? Using cute spin doesn't "debunk" anything. The cute mention of a "slowdown" actually refers to changes that were statistically insignificant -- in scientific terms, that means no change at all.The author deliberately uses the word 'slowdown', not pause. Slowdown implies that climate change continues while pause implies it doesn't.
The significance is that the computer models wrongly predicted huge increases in the Earth's surface temperature.Not many are not saying a pause didn't happen, just that it doesn't have the significance the denier and you want it to have.
It seems to be only significant to you and a few bought and paid scientists and non scientists. Tens of thousands of others think otherwise. We've already dealt with how so not off the mark the models were, but you keep puling it out.The significance is that the computer models wrongly predicted huge increases in the Earth's surface temperature.
Groggy likes to talk about the fact that 1998 was an El Nino year. But he ignores the fact the computer models predicted there would be big increases in the immediate years after 1998 and for all of the years through to the present.
The significant issue isn't the pause itself but the enormous divergence between the computer projections and what actually occurred. The predictions were spectacularly wrong. That's the issue.
I take that as confirmation that you've never actually examined how the results compare with the predictions.We've already dealt with how so not off the mark the models were, but you keep puling it out.
You would take wrong.I take that as confirmation that you've never actually examined how the results compare with the predictions.
I'm not the one who cites false propaganda claims about a "consensus" to try to defend predictions that were spectacularly wrong.You would take wrong.
Those predictions were already discussed in detail more than once in past threads and I don't plan to rehash them. You've shown more than once you just don't how stats, modelling, and forecasts/predictions works so it would be fruitless.
Except they were spectacularly wrong and you repeating that lie won't them so.I'm not the one who cites false propaganda claims about a "consensus" to try to defend predictions that were spectacularly wrong.
If he was being so deliberate, why did he also repeatedly use the word "plateau"? Using cute spin doesn't "debunk" anything. The cute mention of a "slowdown" actually refers to changes that were statistically insignificant -- in scientific terms, that means no change at all.
You also missed the key question he used to set up his speculation of what might be happening:
"So the real question is where all that heat is going, if not to warm the surface."
That sure sounds to me like he is saying the surface hasn't been warming -- certainly not at all like what was predicted (and, whether the author knows it or not, not in any statistically significant way at all).
The significance is that the computer models wrongly predicted huge increases in the Earth's surface temperature.
Groggy likes to talk about the fact that 1998 was an El Nino year. But he ignores the fact the computer models predicted there would be big increases in the immediate years after 1998 and for all of the years through to the present.
The significant issue isn't the pause itself but the enormous divergence between the computer projections and what actually occurred. The predictions were spectacularly wrong. That's the issue.
It`s actually shocking how much you completely missed the point. I`m not sure if that is mostly due to your struggles with the English language or whether it`s due to your inability to understand the science. Maybe both.Ok, I`m glad that you are willing to concede that the pause is based on cherry picking.
Done. In great detail.Go to it, show us what you`ve got.
It was discussed in great detail, but the details didn`t show that the predictions were spectacularly wrong. Nothing wrong with Groggy`s memory on this topic.It`s actually shocking how much you completely missed the point. I`m not sure if that is mostly due to your struggles with the English language or whether it`s due to your inability to understand the science. Maybe both.
Done. In great detail.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated
You may wish to speak to your doctor about your memory issues. It wasn`t that long ago this was all provided to you.
To those who understand the science, that's exactly what they showed.It was discussed in great detail, but the details didn't show that the predictions were spectacularly wrong.
I understand the science very well and have been compensated nicely over the years for that understanding.To those who understand the science, that's exactly what they showed.
In that case, the only explanation I can come up with to explain your militant refusal to accept the results is to go back to what James Lovelock and others have been saying about the global warming movement.I understand the science very well and have been compensated nicely over the years for that understanding.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion"It’s become a religion, and religions don’t worry too much about facts."
James Lovelock again? The creator of the Gaia hypothesis. You really don't give up. That short quote doesn't mean much at all. Environmentalism not a religion.In that case, the only explanation I can come up with to explain your militant refusal to accept the results is to go back to what James Lovelock and others have been saying about the global warming movement.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion
