Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #512362
| From | Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.space.policy |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Date | 2015-08-10 02:22 -0700 |
| Organization | Dis One |
| Message-ID | <mn.508e7df878cfc4c7.127094@snitoo> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <ac14salv38qtv5ec6c970tu3calsmfq6hu@4ax.com> <mptkbb$som$1@speranza.aioe.org> <h6u5sad4hp5ickjm38mempreeul5afv18t@4ax.com> <mn.2d8e7df83787931d.127094@snitoo> <om0csa978ae94b4jd4plp0163vqvta4a1f@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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". /dps -- There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)
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