Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 83

Thread: Climate Models Have No Predictive Power

  1. #61
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    English Midlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,860

    Re: Climate Models Have No Predictive Power

    That's roughly 0.01% of all scientists. Sounds about right.

  2. #62
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    34,010

    Re: Climate Models Have No Predictive Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Surface Detail View Post
    That's roughly 0.01% of all scientists. Sounds about right.
    The names of those who actively put their names on the agree list isn't much larger. Most skeptics simply stay silent, because it can be the death of their financial livelihood to disagree with the gestapo of climate change.
    The left says the right is full of racists and bigots and have no tolerance. Nobody from the right organizes interference with gay pride parades, or other leftist events. The left however always has a group interfering with events organized by the right. Who are the tolerant ones I ask? Most certainly not the left.

  3. #63
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    English Midlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,860

    Re: Climate Models Have No Predictive Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    The names of those who actively put their names on the agree list isn't much larger. Most skeptics simply stay silent, because it can be the death of their financial livelihood to disagree with the gestapo of climate change.
    What agree list?

  4. #64
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    34,010

    Re: Climate Models Have No Predictive Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Surface Detail View Post
    What agree list?
    Exactly!
    The left says the right is full of racists and bigots and have no tolerance. Nobody from the right organizes interference with gay pride parades, or other leftist events. The left however always has a group interfering with events organized by the right. Who are the tolerant ones I ask? Most certainly not the left.

  5. #65
    Guru
    Quaestio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Oz
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,813

    Re: Climate Models Have No Predictive Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Sunsettommy View Post
    I see that you are unaware of a number of skeptics who are not convinced with his paper, here are a couple of new blog postings that show critical analysis of the paper.

    Both from Watts Up With That:

    Critique of “Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Predictions”

    and,

    Additional Comments on the Frank (2019) “Propagation of Error” Paper | Watts Up With That?

    It is YOU who have a bad case of being a bigot.
    Both posts are copied from Roy Spencer from his own blog. Hardly the average gullible climate science denier on WUWT junkscience conspiracy blog or this subforum.

    Seems you got caught with a bad case of lying.

    Let's look at the typical comments from the scientifically illiterate gullible WUWT cult BEFORE Roy Spencer demolished it as rubbish. Including how you got sucked in too.

    Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II. | Watts Up With That?

    "Wow! What a blockbuster of an article, Anthony. Knowledgeable people in the scientific and political communities need to read this article and the accompanying paper and SI and take this to heart"

    "Someone needs to get this Paper to trump…..Have HIM go public with it….And have him ask for rebuttal from the Climate Science world"

    "Climate modelling is Cargo Cult Science!"

    "I have been waiting for years hoping that someone would come up with an A+B proof that definitively buries the non-scientific proceedings of the “climate religion”. Pat Frank’s publication hits that nail with a beautiful hammer!"

    Pat Frank: "Thank-you Charles and thank-you Anthony, for this and all you do."

    Sunsettommy: "Thank YOU for the hard fought effort to post the paper!"

    Pat Frank: "Thanks, but no thanks are necessary, Sunsettommy. I was compelled to do it. Compelled. My sanity demanded it."

    "An excellent paper and commentary. I will reference it often."

    "Thank you, Patrick, for this magnificent defense of science and reason"

    "I have been waiting for 20+ years for someone to publish “common sense” commentary such as yours is, that gives reason for discrediting 99% of all CAGW “junk science” claims and silly rhetoric."

    "This looks like a giant step forward to me."

    Monckton of Brenchley: "Pat Frank’s powerful article is the most important ever to have been published at WattsUpWithThat.com."
    Last edited by Quaestio; 09-15-19 at 06:01 AM.
    "The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong" -Richard Feynman
    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” Bertrand Russell

  6. #66
    Guru
    Quaestio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Oz
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,813

    Re: Climate Models Have No Predictive Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Surface Detail View Post
    What agree list?
    Imagine the surprise that LoP might get if he knew how to do a literature search. There are millions of scientists writing papers related to climate change and global warming.

    Just a quickie Google Scholar search of the published literature using simple parameters "global warming " and "climate change" shows:

    Google Scholar- "global warming"

    About 1,830,000 results

    Google Scholar -"climate change"

    About 2,530,000 results


    Or if he ever went to a major earth sciences conference like the AGU where 1000s of scientists attend who accept that anthropogenic climate change is a problem.
    Last edited by Quaestio; 09-15-19 at 06:18 AM.
    "The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong" -Richard Feynman
    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” Bertrand Russell

  7. #67
    Educator

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,117

    Re: Climate Models Have No Predictive Power

    Both posts are copied from Roy Spencer from his own blog. Hardly the average gullible climate science denier on WUWT junkscience conspiracy blog or this subforum.

    Seems you got caught with a bad case of lying.

    Let's look at the typical comments from the scientifically illiterate gullible WUWT cult BEFORE Roy Spencer demolished it as rubbish. Including how you got sucked in too.

    Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II. | Watts Up With That?

    [INDENT]"Wow! What a blockbuster of an article, Anthony. Knowledgeable people in the scientific and political communities need to read this article and the accompanying paper and SI and take this to heart"

    "Someone needs to get this Paper to trump…..Have HIM go public with it….And have him ask for rebuttal from the Climate Science world"

    "Climate modelling is Cargo Cult Science!"

    "I have been waiting for years hoping that someone would come up with an A+B proof that definitively buries the non-scientific proceedings of the “climate religion”. Pat Frank’s publication hits that nail with a beautiful hammer!"

    Pat Frank: "Thank-you Charles and thank-you Anthony, for this and all you do."

    Sunsettommy: "Thank YOU for the hard fought effort to post the paper!"

    Pat Frank: "Thanks, but no thanks are necessary, Sunsettommy. I was compelled to do it. Compelled. My sanity demanded it."
    ================================

    My my, what an ass you are, I posted them for the single purpose of showing that a number of people are not sold on the paper, I myself have no idea since I never read through it, but realize better to have it published to give it exposure.

    Meanwhile you read the comments very selectively, there are a number of comments that indicate skepticism of the paper, such as these you miraculously didn't see:


    Greg Goodman
    September 11, 2019 at 5:53 pm

    Many thanks to Dr Spencer for his analysis. It was immediately obvious to me that the paper was spurious but I did not have the time to go into it in the detail that he did to come up with a direct refutation and solid reasons why.

    Being a sketpic means being equally skeptical and critical of everything, not just the results you don’t like.

    many thanks for the objective scientific approach.
    Reply

    Nick Stokes
    September 11, 2019 at 6:44 pm

    +1

    Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
    September 11, 2019 at 7:40 pm

    I agree with you, Nick, that this is probably one factor contributing to the delay.


    Javier
    September 11, 2019 at 2:23 pm

    Thank you for your clarification, Dr. Spencer. I was a little suspicious of such a large propagating error in such a short time. Even if wrong, climate models are quite consistent in their response to increasing CO2 levels. That’s why they are easy to emulate with simple models.
    Reply

    TheFinalNail
    September 11, 2019 at 4:39 pm

    I was a little suspicious of such a large propagating error in such a short time.

    As was I. If such a large propagating error existed, then surely it would have already manifested itself as a bigger deviation in the model runs from observations over the forecast period (starts 2006).

    Like Dr Spencer I am not arguing that the models are “right”, or above questioning; and anyone can see that observations are currently on the low side of of the CMIP5 model runs overall. However, as things stand observations remain within the relatively narrow margins of the multi-model range.

    If Pat’s hypothesis were right, and the error in the models was as big as he suggests, then after nearly 13 years we would already expect to see a much bigger deviation between model outputs and observations than we currently do.

    Kudos to Roy Spencer and WUWT for demonstrating true skepticism here.

    ======================

    There are a few more, and that was from the first link. The second link shows two camps in the comments.

    Now that I have showed evidence that a few skeptics are not enamored with the paper...............

    Yes I did laud him for the SIX year effort to get it published, but that didn't mean I thought his paper was validated, that remains to be seen. Thus your usual evasive B.S. over the details of the paper gets noted for your deflection.

    It is clear you have no interest in cogent debate.

  8. #68
    Educator

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,117

    Re: Climate Models Have No Predictive Power

    Questrio makes clear of his bigotry and makes unsubstantiated claims, first he states the following:

    Both posts are copied from Roy Spencer from his own blog. Hardly the average gullible climate science denier on WUWT junkscience conspiracy blog or this subforum.

    Seems you got caught with a bad case of lying.

    Let's look at the typical comments from the scientifically illiterate gullible WUWT cult BEFORE Roy Spencer demolished it as rubbish. Including how you got sucked in too.
    Of course they were Originally from Dr. Spenser, it says in both postings, here are the opening of each post:


    Additional Comments on the Frank (2019) “Propagation of Error” Paper

    charles the moderator / 3 days ago September 12, 2019

    From Dr Roy Spencer’s Blog

    September 12th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    NOTE: This post has undergone a few revisions as I try to be more precise in my wording. The latest revision was at 0900 CDT Sept. 12, 2019.

    If this post is re-posted elsewhere, I ask that the above time stamp be included.
    LINK

    and,


    Critique of “Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Predictions”

    charles the moderator / 4 days ago September 11, 2019

    From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog

    September 11th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
    LINK

    ==========================

    The reason why Watts Up With That? reposted both of his blog articles, is because he is in reply to Dr. Franks paper which was originally posted at Watts Up With That?


    Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II.

    Guest Blogger / 1 week ago September 7, 2019

    Guest post by Pat Frank

    Readers of Watts Up With That will know from Mark I that for six years I have been trying to publish a manuscript with the post title. Well, it has passed peer review and is now published at Frontiers in Earth Science: Atmospheric Science. The paper demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value.

    Before going further, my deep thanks to Anthony Watts for giving a voice to independent thought. So many have sought to suppress it (freedom denialists?). His gift to us (and to America) is beyond calculation. And to Charles the moderator, my eternal gratitude for making it happen.
    LINK

    Dr Spenser's criticism were deliberately brought up to foster debate.

    You have been exposed as a bullcrapper, stop being a meathead.
    Last edited by Sunsettommy; 09-16-19 at 12:22 AM.

  9. #69
    Proud member of the 'ilk'

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    39,269

    Re: Climate Models Have No Predictive Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Sunsettommy View Post
    ================================

    My my, what an ass you are, I posted them for the single purpose of showing that a number of people are not sold on the paper, I myself have no idea since I never read through it, but realize better to have it published to give it exposure.

    Meanwhile you read the comments very selectively, there are a number of comments that indicate skepticism of the paper, such as these you miraculously didn't see:


    Greg Goodman
    September 11, 2019 at 5:53 pm

    Many thanks to Dr Spencer for his analysis. It was immediately obvious to me that the paper was spurious but I did not have the time to go into it in the detail that he did to come up with a direct refutation and solid reasons why.

    Being a sketpic means being equally skeptical and critical of everything, not just the results you don’t like.

    many thanks for the objective scientific approach.
    Reply

    Nick Stokes
    September 11, 2019 at 6:44 pm

    +1

    Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
    September 11, 2019 at 7:40 pm

    I agree with you, Nick, that this is probably one factor contributing to the delay.


    Javier
    September 11, 2019 at 2:23 pm

    Thank you for your clarification, Dr. Spencer. I was a little suspicious of such a large propagating error in such a short time. Even if wrong, climate models are quite consistent in their response to increasing CO2 levels. That’s why they are easy to emulate with simple models.
    Reply

    TheFinalNail
    September 11, 2019 at 4:39 pm

    I was a little suspicious of such a large propagating error in such a short time.

    As was I. If such a large propagating error existed, then surely it would have already manifested itself as a bigger deviation in the model runs from observations over the forecast period (starts 2006).

    Like Dr Spencer I am not arguing that the models are “right”, or above questioning; and anyone can see that observations are currently on the low side of of the CMIP5 model runs overall. However, as things stand observations remain within the relatively narrow margins of the multi-model range.

    If Pat’s hypothesis were right, and the error in the models was as big as he suggests, then after nearly 13 years we would already expect to see a much bigger deviation between model outputs and observations than we currently do.

    Kudos to Roy Spencer and WUWT for demonstrating true skepticism here.

    ======================

    There are a few more, and that was from the first link. The second link shows two camps in the comments.

    Now that I have showed evidence that a few skeptics are not enamored with the paper...............

    Yes I did laud him for the SIX year effort to get it published, but that didn't mean I thought his paper was validated, that remains to be seen. Thus your usual evasive B.S. over the details of the paper gets noted for your deflection.

    It is clear you have no interest in cogent debate.
    LOL.

    And I thought WUWT was the lowest evidence bar in existence.

    And then sunsettommy presents *comments* from WUWT posts as some kind of educated forum.

    Jeez.
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  10. #70
    Minister of Love
    PoS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oceania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    19,028

    Re: Climate Models Have No Predictive Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    LOL.

    And I thought WUWT was the lowest evidence bar in existence.

    And then sunsettommy presents *comments* from WUWT posts as some kind of educated forum.

    Jeez.
    Doesnt matter where its published from since you cant put anything up to refute it either way.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •