• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scott Adams: The Climate Science Challenge

Buzz said:
There is if you have to cherry pick the temperature record to show there is still a pause while you ignore all the other records that show the slow down in warming is long over with.



Says who? You? A denialist who resorts to lies and double standards when he is proven wrong.
Click to expand...

You are twisting yourself like a pretzel.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are twisting yourself like a pretzel.
Click to expand...

You lied. It is not the first time either. And I am sure you will continue to lie like you are doing now.
 
LowDown said:
No, the challenge was to find a climate scientist who would attest to those models having good accuracy at predicting future climate. Don't try to move the goal posts.
Click to expand...

And plenty did on his Twitter feed. Then Adams moved the goal posts.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

I don't think you'll find any real climate scientists here. There are some fake ones who pretend to 'read all the papers' though.
Click to expand...
Gosh, one even claimed to have 'seen most of them and read the abstracts' after he been provided with a Google Scholar search which resulted in 143,000 papers. ;)
 
From Zeke Hausfather (Berkeley Earth)

C00DX26UoAEvS3k.jpg
 
Is that the updated version?
 
Buzz said:
Nice video... short and sweet and too the point. Easterbrook's prediction always gives me a chuckle or two.
Click to expand...

Easterbrook is one of the dishonest contrarian 'scientists' responsible for a fake graph that does the rounds of the internet that science deniers love to post. It shows data from Richard Alley's GISP2 dataset from an ice-core at the top of the Greenland ice-sheet that ends in 1855, and misrepresents it as GLOBAL AVERAGE temperatures ending in 2000. Science deniers don't ever seem to fact-check it. Or notice that the temperature at the top of the Greenland ice sheet in 1855 was MINUS 31C - which is pretty funny for an average global temperature.

The intention seems to be to 'hide the incline' since 1855 and to falsely claim that global average temperatures changed fairly quickly in the past. This is so they can claim that the recent global warming is not unusual. Local Greenland temperatures may have changed reasonably quickly, but not global average.

Tim Ball did the same thing recently in a dishonest blog rant on WUWT.
 
Buzz said:
Is that the updated version?
Click to expand...

Here's the latest from Gareth Jones updating his figure from the IPCC AR5 Ch 10 with 2016 data up to Nov 2016.

C080ZaGXAAEcvaW.jpg

I follow a number of climate scientists on Twitter.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Smart man for someone who does cartoons.

There is a prominent alarmist bloggers the warmers respect who is also a cartoonist!

The alarmists have one, why shouldn't the realists have one with a voice of reason?
Click to expand...

You can stick with a cartoonist. I'll stick with scientists.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I believe something like 95% of the models have gone off the rails after 20 years. I wonder how many of the 5% will survive another 5 or 10 years.
Click to expand...
Lord of Planar said:
Not only at the bottom, but trending to break the model.
Click to expand...

You can believe whatever you like. You're wrong. But that's nothing new.

You're a layperson with no qualifications or background in climate science (or any field of science) posting on an anonymous political forum.

I'll stick with published scientists, who rely on evidence, who know they're talking about.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
You can believe whatever you like. You're wrong. But that's nothing new.

You're a layperson with no qualifications or background in climate science (or any field of science) posting on an anonymous political forum.

I'll stick with published scientists, who rely on evidence, who know they're talking about.
Click to expand...

So you ignore John Cook too?
 
Quaestio said:
Sorry, just checked. The 2016 temperature datasets don't include Dec yet.
Click to expand...
And it's been getting frikken cold where I live, much colder than normal.

I wonder about other places?
 
Quaestio said:
You can believe whatever you like. You're wrong. But that's nothing new.

You're a layperson with no qualifications or background in climate science (or any field of science) posting on an anonymous political forum.

I'll stick with published scientists, who rely on evidence, who know they're talking about.
Click to expand...
I will let the future's history judge me. I think it will judge me well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom