Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #512390
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.space.policy |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Date | 2015-08-10 09:34 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <e2ahsats73fuqtorr224clrrfqu57rm3fo@4ax.com> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <mptkbb$som$1@speranza.aioe.org> <h6u5sad4hp5ickjm38mempreeul5afv18t@4ax.com> <mn.2d8e7df83787931d.127094@snitoo> <om0csa978ae94b4jd4plp0163vqvta4a1f@4ax.com> <mn.508e7df878cfc4c7.127094@snitoo> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:22:50 -0700, Snidely wrote: >On Saturday, Wally W. pointed out that ... >> On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:42:37 -0700, Snidely wrote: >> >>> Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday: >>>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote: >>>> >>>>> Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit : >>>>>> Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions: >>>>>> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/> >>>>> >>>>> CFACT >>>>> >>>>> CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers >>>>> through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing >>>>> because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret. >>>>> >>>>> :-) >>>>> >>>>> Now to the content of that link >>>>> >>>>> They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that >>>>> says that >>>>> >>>>> <quote> >>>>> we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real >>>>> world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming >>>>> <end quote> >>>>> >>>>> Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper... >>>>> >>>>> Mr Spencer just SAYS SO. >>>> >>>> Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right. >>>> >>>> You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you? >>>> >>>> >>>>> Who is that guy? >>>> >>>> So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>>> See: >>>>> Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer >>>>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall >>>>> Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and >>>>> public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a >>>>> libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also >>>>> listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental >>>>> Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" >>>>> organization >>>> >>>> So? >>>> >>>> All you have is ad hom? >>>> >>>> Are you going to show those 73 models to be right? >>> >>> It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All >>> models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be >>> expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is >>> inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of >>> hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the >>> displacement input is too large. >>> >>> Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect >>> the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to >>> understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate >>> research. >> >> Which says something about the relevance of the "research" to the real >> world, doesn't it? >> >> >>>> Why not? >>> >>> Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right. >>> >>>> Do you agree they are wrong? >>>> >>>> If so, what are you whingeing about? >>> >>> All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is >>> right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as >>> the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being >>> perfect is asinine. >> >> So is looking to models instead of reality. >> >> Reality: no warming for 18+ years. >> >> The models told us the sky was falling and we were all gonna die. > >As you walk across the sinkholes in the tundra, just keep saying "it's >still frozen, it's still frozen". There were times in the past when it wasn't frozen. Was it a problem then?
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 15:38 -0500
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-17 04:26 +0000
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:24 -0500
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 17:19 -0500
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-17 22:38 +0000
ah, interesting noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 16:07 -0700
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won't notice) Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 16:35 -0700
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-07-30 11:12 -0400
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-02 12:05 +0200
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 06:58 -0400
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2015-08-02 12:53 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 00:12 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-02 19:57 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 10:40 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 08:03 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:37 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:28 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:41 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 22:40 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 06:48 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:51 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 08:18 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:35 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 20:37 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 22:40 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 02:51 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 02:23 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:01 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 13:35 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 03:43 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 01:21 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-07 12:50 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-07 13:23 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:43 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-04 08:30 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 14:07 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 03:46 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-05 08:51 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-05 20:23 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-06 02:04 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 23:42 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-08 09:25 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 02:22 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-10 09:34 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 10:37 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:55 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 01:05 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-12 11:17 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-12 05:44 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 05:19 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:05 -0500
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-13 02:34 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 22:23 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:45 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-04 09:52 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-04 08:55 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2015-08-04 19:28 -0400
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-08-08 10:56 -0400
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-08-08 15:19 +0000
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 12:07 -0500
csiph-web