Cold sun rising

I have much more standing than you. I generally post about metalworking or about how stupid trolls are to post in rcm. Unlike you I do not start th reads that are off topic. I realize that you start off topic threads becau se you are ignorant about metalworking. But if you are going to post off t opic threads , you could pick topics on wbich you have some knowledge. Cop ying and pasting something is not the same as posting something of which y ou have some knowledge.

Dan

I see. Then you must be conceding that silicon based life-form creatures from Zenot are here and changing the climate. Isn't that what you wrote?

Climate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren?t. May 6, 2014 By Sean Davis

The Obama Administration released a new report on global cooling global warming climate change this week, and its findings and recommendations are about what you?d expect: conservatives are stupidheads who hate Science?, so give us eleventy trillion dollars.

From the Chicago Tribune:

The Obama administration Tuesday released an updated report on how climate change requires urgent action to counter impacts that touch every corner of the country, from oyster growers in Washington State to maple syrup producers in Vermont.

?Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,? the report said.

Unfortunately, climate models ? ones that can accurately and consistently predict global temperatures in the not-so-distant future ? simply don?t exist in the present. Indeed, for a group that so nakedly appeals to the authority of ?consensus,? the faith-based global warming alarmist movement is shockingly impervious to the consensus of actual data:

Climate Model Comparison

I?ll see your ?95 percent of scientists believe in global warming? talking point and raise you a ?95 percent of reality thinks your climate models are garbage.? According to that chart of actual satellite and surface temperature observations vs. what was predicted by 90 different climate models, 95 percent of models overestimated actual temperatures. Nothing says Science? like predicting stuff incorrectly over and over and over again.

And therein lies the real reason why so many global warming cultists are so desperate to change the terms of the debate. Rather than discuss the actual science, they?d rather marginalize anyone who disagrees with their policy prescriptions.

The global warming alarmists aren?t attempting to shut down debate because they?re worried the dissenters are wrong; the alarmists are attempting to shut down debate because they know their models are wrong, and they?d rather nobody focus on that inconvenient little fact.

As the old legal adage goes: When you have the facts, argue the facts; when you have the law, argue the law; when you have neither, just accuse your adversary of hating science and hope that nobody will listen to what they have to say about your consistently wrong forecasting models. And if that doesn?t work, blatantly manipulate and torture the English language and hope that nobody will notice.

Of course climate change ? the notion that climates change over time, not the idea that we should spend a fortune futilely trying to change the weather ? is real. Climates have changed consistently throughout the earth?s history. I am not aware of a single person who disagrees with the fact that climates change. Accusing someone of being a ?climate denier? (does anyone on earth deny that climates exist?) doesn?t tell me that you?re awesome at science ? it tells me that you?re awful at understanding what words mean.

And of course the earth has been gradually warming over the past 150+ years. That?s what happens when you emerge from a Little Ice Age, which lasted for hundreds of years and extended through the mid-19th century.

It is clearly possible (and quite common) to simultaneously believe that the earth is warming and that global warming cultists have utterly failed in their attempts to predict future climate changes.

I have a simple rule when it comes to people who want me to invest obscene sums of money in their forecasts of discrete future events: just be accurate. If you come to me and tell me you can predict future stock market performance based on these five factors, then you had better predict future stock market performance based on those five factors. All you have to do is be correct, over and over again. But if your predictive model is wrong, I?m not going to give you any money, and I?m certainly not going to pretend that what you just did is science. Any idiot can make incorrect guesses about the future.

Science, properly practiced, is the search for truth. Science, properly practiced, rejects forecasting models that consistently produce inaccurate forecasts. There?s nothing scientific about shouting down anyone who has the audacity to point out that the only thing your model can accurately predict is what the temperature won?t be.

On 11/13/2015 1:23 PM, asshole lied:

You don't.

The person who wrote that isn't a scientist, and is not in a position to evaluate climate change models.

Translation: When you can't challenge the message, you berate the messenger.

Dan , he posts off-topic bullshit because he's a troll . He has no other raison d'etre . I've had a little fun poking him with a stick , but he's gone totally off his liberal nut . We've reduced him to just calling names and attempting (feebly IMO) to insult us . I scoff in his general direction while picking my nose and flipping the boogers at him .

You have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, you're talking about stochastic models and treating them like mathematical models. That's the first mistake made by the ignorant.

So you're just contributing to the noise.

That's an ignorant conclusion.

Sean Davis, who wrote that piece, has a degree in finance and nothing in his background that suggests an understanding of science. He cribbed most of the article from another news source, one even less likely to know anything about science.

And he completely misrepresented the difference in temperatures and temperature predictions from the source. What he would have said, if he knew what he was doing, is that the models and the observed data follow the same trend lines. The difference is a small multiplier, not a qualitative one.

Why do you quote these people? Do you think they know what they're doing? They don't.

The translation is, you are an extreme ideologue who hates science.

The guy whose work he cited, Roy Spencer, is a well-known denier who works as a meteorologist and has academic credentials in it, but does

*not* work investigating climate change. He has no published papers in which he has attempted to rebut any of the peer-reviewed work in climate change. He has written a couple of popular press books, snarking at the climate change scientists.

He's also a proponent of "intelligent design."

You post off-topic bullshit, which means you have no standing to criticize others who do it.

This is settled.

Now stamp your feet.

You do realize everyone is laughing at you, not with you.

Dan

Sir. Yes, sir. Fuck you, sir.

Now then, about your alien invaders from Zinot, how do you think we should deal with them. Sir.

Cut the bullshit, bitch.

Sir. Yes, sir. Fuck you, sir.

Now then, about your alien invaders from Zinot, how do you think we should deal with them. Sir.

No need. You *do* post off-topic bullshit, in nearly every post.

You lose, forging bitch.

It's YOU that keeps forging the groups list, not me, sir. Plus all your snipping.

I realize you are scared shitless by my probing questions and feel the need to snip everything I write, but I have to point out we ALL lose unless you find a way to get your invaders from Zinot under control. Except Ray, of course. He looses.

Here you are flexing your mighty muscles, mouth muscles that is, while the entire Earth goes down to your beloved off-planet immigrants. You sir are a trader to the whole human race.