• 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!

An Article from WUWT

Quaestio said:
Yet again your complete ignorance about climate models shows that your amateur opinions are irrelevant when it comes to science.
Click to expand...

It doesn't look to me like you understand any of it.
 
Quaestio said:
You show you don't have a clue how climate models work. And you still haven't read the comments in the RealClimate thread, including the lesson in basic math and statistics that Gavin had to give Pat Frank (who had about a dozen long-winded posts there despite your lies). Your credibility and integrity is non-existent
Click to expand...

Yes, I've read Gavin's comments especially. He's just wrong. The models include a lot of systematic error, and there's no way of getting around that. You don't need to believe me, you need to understand the science.
 
Quaestio said:
Yet again your complete ignorance about climate models shows that your amateur opinions are irrelevant when it comes to science.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate.
 
Quaestio said:
You show you don't have a clue how climate models work. And you still haven't read the comments in the RealClimate thread, including the lesson in basic math and statistics that Gavin had to give Pat Frank (who had about a dozen long-winded posts there despite your lies). Your credibility and integrity is non-existent
Click to expand...

Real Climate is a joke. It suffices to keep the ignorant indoctrinated.

Please show me what part of the Real Climate blog addresses what is in the video.

Lay odds you are incapable...
 
LowDown said:
Yes, I've read Gavin's comments especially. He's just wrong. The models include a lot of systematic error, and there's no way of getting around that. You don't need to believe me, you need to understand the science.
Click to expand...

That is something these warmers do not understand. I can't believe there are any actual scientists that don't see it.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Real Climate is a joke. It suffices to keep the ignorant indoctrinated.

Please show me what part of the Real Climate blog addresses what is in the video.

Lay odds you are incapable...
Click to expand...
It's your ideologically motivated denial of science and your amateur pseudoscience opinions that are a joke. Along with your seriously funny self-deluded beliefs of being an 'expert'.

Read it or not. I don't care either way. There are 473 posts, many by scientists and many of which answer Pat Frank's own posts (and those of one of Pat Frank's promoters- Gerald Browning). Including Gavin Schmidt giving Pat Frank a lesson in basic math and how climate models work - which you also appear to be in need of. I found all the comments an interesting read. I doubt you would.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
It's your ideologically motivated denial of science and your amateur pseudoscience opinions that are a joke. Along with your seriously funny self-deluded claims of being an 'expert'.

Read it or not. I don't care either way. There are 473 posts, many by scientists and many of which answer Pat Frank's own posts. Including Gavin Schmidt giving him a lesson in basic math and how climate models work - which you also appear to be in need of. I found all the comments an interesting read. I doubt you would.
Click to expand...
Please quote the one that does. It would be nice if you had some productive words instead of only denying facts.

I have no problem speaking about science, but yo most certainly do.

Please stop wasting our time.
 
LowDown said:
It doesn't look to me like you understand any of it.
Click to expand...

That's because you have your science denier blinkers on and have such a poor understanding of all of it.
 
Quaestio said:
That's because you have your science denier blinkers on and have such a poor understanding of all of it.
Click to expand...
You are the one incapable of speaking the language of science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please quote the one that does. It would be nice if you had some productive words instead of only denying facts.

I have no problem speaking about science, but yo most certainly do.

Please stop wasting our time.
Click to expand...

Like I said, read all the comments or not. I don't care.

Yes we know you believe that learning science is a waste of your time.
 
Quaestio said:
Like I said, read all the comments or not. I don't care.

Yes we know you believe that learning science is a waste of your time.
Click to expand...

LOL...

Do you really think that deflection flies with intelligent people?

The how about this... Explain why it is wrong in your own words.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You are the one incapable of speaking the language of science.
Click to expand...
Science is clearly a foreign language to you. Probably why you get it so wrong so often and why you speak in the language of sciency sounding waffle. (When you're not just insulting everyone, beating your own puffed up chest, and trying to pretend you are the voice of scientific authority and expertise on this subforum).
 
Quaestio said:
Science is clearly a foreign language to you. Probably why you get it so wrong so often and why you speak in the language of sciency sounding waffle. (When you're not just insulting everyone, beating your own puffed up chest, and trying to pretend you are the voice of scientific authority and expertise on this subforum).
Click to expand...

You claim it exists, and want me to read a bazillion comments to find it? You claim to have read it, so a keyword should be fresh on your mind for a search.

I don't recall you ever speaking of science in your own words, and you think people believe you?

Please... I laugh enough at warmer comments already.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

Do you really think that deflection flies with intelligent people?
Click to expand...

Can you point out the intelligent people on this thread? I haven't noticed any.
 
Buzz said:
Says the guy who spams this forum with almost nothing but biased articles. Oh... the irony!! :shock::3oops::lol:

Hey!! Why don't you actually join the discussion and tell me exactly what I said that shows confirmation bias? Both LowDown and jmotivator admitted that if the errors are both positive and negative then they would cancel out.

If anyone is committing confirmation bias it is all the denialists here who are forgetting that Frank said "plus or minus".
Click to expand...

Actually, they admitted no such thing. And it doesn't seem important to me that the errors would be "plus or minus." The critical question is whether they're random or systemic.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Errors are actually not likely to cancel each other out. No matter what they say. The probability is actually low.
Click to expand...

They WILL cancel out if they are truly random no matter what you erroneously think. This is basic science. Go look it up before you make a fool of yourself and try telling me I am wrong.

Lord of Planar said:
Try running the statistics of the probability of cancellation.
Click to expand...

How about YOU running the numbers. And for fun why don't you run the statistics of probability for Frank's insane error ranges so we might see which is more likely.

Lord of Planar said:
Apparently you didn't understand the video, or didn't watch it.
Click to expand...

I watched it twice then went a did a bunch of research on the subject. Not only did I find the Real Climate link Quaestio fond I also found another blog debate that Pat Frank participated in.

Lord of Planar said:
He showed high correlation for a systemic error.

Go back to about 18:43 and see the lag run error correlations.
Click to expand...

What he showed was high correlation between some of the models but not all of them. Some of the models overestimated clouds... some underestimated. Hence the plus or minus error Frank gave. From what I understand there should have been high correlation between all of them if there really was systemic error. And what ever you do... don't just tell me I am wrong. Tell me why I am wrong.

Lord of Planar said:
I finally watched the video.

Great stuff, and in my opinion, spot on as to what is probably happening in the climate models.
Click to expand...

So much for your lie that you get all your opinions from peer reviewed and published articles. Here you are actually agreeing with some guy on a blog who's paper was rejected by several journals.

So blogs are fine if they push your denialist opinions but if they don't and come from Threegoofs they are automatically wrong.

Your a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
Buzz said:
Both LowDown and jmotivator admitted that if the errors are both positive and negative then they would cancel out.
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
Actually, they admitted no such thing.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

LowDown said:
...the clock will be one minute slow one day and one minute fast the next, so that the errors cancel out.
Click to expand...

jmotivator said:
Random errors tend not to effect a models projections because it is assumed that random errors occur in equal frequency both + and - and even themselves out.
Click to expand...



Jack Hays said:
And it doesn't seem important to me that the errors would be "plus or minus." The critical question is whether they're random or systemic.
Click to expand...

That is because you don't really understand science.
 
Buzz said:
Wrong.

That is because you don't really understand science.
Click to expand...

They said positive and negative would cancel if they were random. Whether they are random or systemic is the point at issue.
 
Jack Hays said:
They said positive and negative would cancel if they were random. Whether they are random or systemic is the point at issue.
Click to expand...

Yes. I did say "if".

And when you have random errors they tend to be both positive and negative. Where as if they are systematic then they are likely to be just positive or negative.

Do you now see why the plus or minus I keep talking about is relevant? And why all the deniers want to claim the errors are all positive?
 
Buzz said:
Yes. I did say "if".

And when you have random errors they tend to be both positive and negative. Where as if they are systematic then they are likely to be just positive or negative.

Do you now see why the plus or minus I keep talking about is relevant? And why all the deniers want to claim the errors are all positive?
Click to expand...

Likely, perhaps, but not certain. Systemic errors both positive and negative are not out of the question in complex models.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom