Thanks to Global Warming and Man's impact Tornadoes set a record in the USA this year.

[Threegoofs]

No, the reason I accept gravity has nothing to do with what others agree upon. I accept it because it tells me where to aim my telescope. And it tells me when high tides will come. It predicts dropped apple behavior, and thrown stone behavior, and the arrival of Spring. And there are NO gravity-based predictions in the relativistic universe that fail when tested. Perhaps there are in the subatomic world - I'm not sure.

Surely you can see why comparisons between gravitational theory and AGW theory are problematic! AGW theory fails EVERY important test!

But if that behavior didn't hold up, then no. I wouldn't believe in gravity just because a bunch of witch doctors who didn't employ the scientific method told me I had to. But it's okay if that's how you operate. Most people are like that. Just look to the Middle East - where practically EVERYONE believes in Allah. If you were there, you would too. After all, you'd have been told to by all of your peers and superiors . . . and I can see that you're a man who knows his place. People who don't question are essential to society, Quaestio. I'm glad you're here.

 

[Decomposed]

You've made a uh... 'spectacular' entrance to the forum. I suppose I should say 'welcome', but mainly my response was *sigh*- not another one. You're certainly free to post whatever nonsense you like and make a fool of yourself though. Lot's of people do that here so you won't be alone.

What a shame. By no means was I trying to run you off. I just thought this was a forum for discussing Climate Change. Here you are, with a tremendous understanding of it, and me NOT understanding it at all, and you aren't willing to answer my questions. It's a shame. If this was an "Introductory Algebra" forum and I showed up saying I didn't get it and wasn't sure it really worked, would you likewise leave the forum out of disgust that I didn't already know the subject and hadn't seen proof that Algebra works?? I guess so.

Oh well. See you 'round. ;(

 

[Threegoofs]

What a shame. By no means was I trying to run you off. I just thought this was a forum for discussing Climate Change. Here you are, with a tremendous understanding of it, and me NOT understanding it at all, and you aren't willing to answer my questions. It's a shame. If this was an "Introductory Algebra" forum and I showed up saying I didn't get it and wasn't sure it really worked, would you likewise leave the forum out of disgust that I didn't already know the subject and hadn't seen proof that Algebra works?? I guess so.

Oh well. See you 'round. ;(

Wait.

I thought you’ve been studying this for years?

Now you don’t know anything and need to be educated?

Stick to one story, dude.

 

[Decomposed]

*** Your Climate Model Graph ***

That's a very convincing image you posted showing accurate climate models.

HOWEVER, there are considerably more than 5 models. Your source failed to show all of them. If it had done so, it would have shown that over 95% of climate models are wrong. What your source did was to RETROACTIVELY choose the ones that best fit what really happened and then make it appear that they are the climate models NASA now uses. This is a little like 'predicting' hurricane paths after the fact, displaying only the hurricane tracking models that got it right. Here's a better display of what models have been saying about AGW. They're all over the map. And the ones that got it right in the past will NOT get it right in the future. If they would, we would not be debating the theory right now. I'd be agreeing with you.

 

[Quaestio]

Well, the nuts in the religion forum have the same type of mindset as the nuts in the climate forum, but the important difference is here nobody really tries to end the argument by saying their info is coming from an imaginary friend in the sky.

LOL! True.

Some just try to end it by invoking Al Gore as if he was the God of all scientists when he isn't a scientist and then claim things he didn't actually say anyway.

Some just invoke a major conspiracy where millions of scientists from many different fields and every single major science institution on the planet are corrupt and 'on the gravy train', fudging the data, ... and clearly trying to trick everyone about the laws of physics.

Some are like a King of the Dunning-Kruger effect with: "I know more than all you uneducated peasants! Be off with You! How dare you criticize my expert knowledge! Off with your heads!"

Some claim they never read conspiracy pseudoscience blogs but everything they write sounds like it comes straight from a conspiracy pseudoscience blog.

Some can only copy and paste dishonest out-of-context quote mines then argue that they actually bought a book on Amazon-which turns out to be a free pdf on the Heartland Institute website, then run off and make a cartoon because they got their arse spanked.

Some parrot "the models are all wrong!" and post one of the unpublished dishonest Christy/Spencer graphics despite being shown umpteen times that the models have been pretty much on track.

Some just think climate science is a big lefty Marxist conspiracy to take over the world and take away their money or guns or faith or...something or other.

Some claim that scientists have never discussed something, but it turns out it's just because they don't know much about t and have never bothered to look.

Some post the same old 4 or 5 memes with their own amateur 'numbers', or a single paper they misrepresent anyway, over and over again for years and keep on doing it despite being told where they are wrong over and over again.

Some just copy and paste some poorly labeled fake graph they know nothing about from some pseudoscience blog and go "neena neena gotcha!"

Some claim that scientist don't consider their amateur notions - and it's because scientists understand the science better than they do and just aren't actually that stupid.

Some insist on testing everyone's "science qualifications" with asking simple highschool arithmetic questions.

Some make stupid claims like 'It's the sun stupid!" as if scientists don't know anything about the sun and haven't written extensively about it in 1000's of published research papers for decades, in textbooks, or in chapters in the major reports.

Some just claim "the climate has changed in the past naturally before there were SUVs so humans can't cause climate change" which is as stupid as saying forest fores occurred naturally in the past, so humans can't commit arson to start forest fires. Try that one with a judge.

Some ask for constant links but complain when you give them too many links or links to a major report and won't read them even if you give them page numbers.

Some want you to do all their homework for them and write long posts explaining science that is freely available from online science sources, and if you do take the time to do it, they just ignore it anyway and ask the same question a few days later from someone else.

Some just spam and flood the forum endlessly with copied and pasted blog posts from pseudoscience blogs making every thread hard to wade through

Some just claim all the scientists are wrong, the physics is all wrong, the textbooks are all wrong.... and that "ice can't melt only water can melt". :shock:

Some do most of the above at some stage....well maybe not the last one, as that's beyond insane.

i'm sure you can add to the list? :mrgreen:

We could update an old Climate Denier Bingo card!

 

[Quaestio]

Surely you can see why comparisons between gravitational theory and AGW theory are problematic! AGW theory fails EVERY important test!

No, It doesn't. Try to stop parroting mindless memes from pseudoscience blogs/tabloid sources and educate yourself. I shouldn't even have to tell you where to go to do that because if you were actually honest about wanting to find out information, you'd already know.

 

[Decomposed]

Wait.

I thought you’ve been studying this for years? Now you don’t know anything and need to be educated? Stick to one story, dude.

I didn't mean to confuse you, ThreeGoofs. Reading up on AGW for twenty years has failed to make a convincing case for it. So, if you guys know it to be true, I DO still need to be educated and will be happy to hear your explanations. Unfortunately, at least some of you say you've heard everything I might be wondering about before and you don't want to explain it to me. Too bad for me. I'll just continue to have my unanswered questions and will likely remain a "doubter" for some time to come.

 

[Quaestio]

That's a very convincing image you posted showing accurate climate models.

HOWEVER, there are considerably more than 5 models. Your source failed to show all of them. If it had done so, it would have shown that over 95% of climate models are wrong. What your source did was to RETROACTIVELY choose the ones that best fit what really happened and then make it appear that they are the climate models NASA now uses. This is a little like 'predicting' hurricane paths after the fact, displaying only the hurricane tracking models that got it right. Here's a better display of what models have been saying about AGW. They're all over the map. And the ones that got it right in the past will NOT get it right in the future. If they would, we would not be debating the theory right now. I'd be agreeing with you.
View attachment 67246937

Yawn. Yep, there's the usual post of the dishonest unpublished Spencer/Chrstie graph that you copied from some pseudoscience blog or tabloid.
(see my long list with the Bingo card- you;re up to at least 4 or more climate truther parroted memes and you've only just started!)

Do you really think we haven't seen that rubbish hundreds of times before?

Here's Dr Gavin Schmidt the Director of NASA GISS explaining how it's dishonest

Comparing models to the satellite datasets « RealClimate



and here is an honest graphic of how the models have been doing from Dr Gareth Jones who authored the fig 10.1 graph in Chapter 10 of the WG1 AR5


https://twitter.com/GarethSJones1/status/954293866177421313

Please go search the forum first before thinking you are the first person to claim something and that it hasn't already been addressed umpteen times before.

 

[Decomposed]

...educate yourself. I shouldn't even have to tell you where to go to do that because if you were actually honest about wanting to find out information, you'd already know.

Well, that fraudulent graph that ThreeGoofs posted was pretty darned persuasive. It's a shame that whoever put it together was lying. It really wasn't my goal to show him that his Climate Change source was peddling false information that he fell for but... over the years... I've seen that SO many times. The lies with regard to Climate Change... There are SO many. The truth always comes through in the end, though. I really believe that.

 

[Decomposed]

Do you really think we haven't seen that rubbish hundreds of times before?

How should I know? I don't know you. I only know that one of the people I've been discussing the subject with here just tried to pass fraudulent information to make his case and I was either the only one or maybe just the first one who noticed. Yeah, I'm sure I was only the first one to notice. I can tell that you guys are good people.

 

[Threegoofs]

That's a very convincing image you posted showing accurate climate models.

HOWEVER, there are considerably more than 5 models. Your source failed to show all of them. If it had done so, it would have shown that over 95% of climate models are wrong. What your source did was to RETROACTIVELY choose the ones that best fit what really happened and then make it appear that they are the climate models NASA now uses. This is a little like 'predicting' hurricane paths after the fact, displaying only the hurricane tracking models that got it right. Here's a better display of what models have been saying about AGW. They're all over the map. And the ones that got it right in the past will NOT get it right in the future. If they would, we would not be debating the theory right now. I'd be agreeing with you.
View attachment 67246937

LOL.

Your ‘source’ has been shown repeatedly to be ridiculously manipulated- changing the baseline, etc.

But you don’t care. It’s denier food, and you eat it up.

 

[Threegoofs]

I didn't mean to confuse you, ThreeGoofs. Reading up on AGW for twenty years has failed to make a convincing case for it. So, if you guys know it to be true, I DO still need to be educated and will be happy to hear your explanations. Unfortunately, at least some of you say you've heard everything I might be wondering about before and you don't want to explain it to me. Too bad for me. I'll just continue to have my unanswered questions and will likely remain a "doubter" for some time to come.

Yep.
Because no one can reason a man out of something he didn’t reason himself into.

Keep studying reddit. Real hard.

 

[Threegoofs]

Well, that fraudulent graph that ThreeGoofs posted was pretty darned persuasive. It's a shame that whoever put it together was lying. It really wasn't my goal to show him that his Climate Change source was peddling false information that he fell for but... over the years... I've seen that SO many times. The lies with regard to Climate Change... There are SO many. The truth always comes through in the end, though. I really believe that.

LOL.

The guy who put it together was the guy who’s pretty involved in developing models and directing GISS temp research

But you don’t know the source, or care, because you read Reddit.

LOL

 

[Quaestio]

What a shame. By no means was I trying to run you off. I just thought this was a forum for discussing Climate Change. Here you are, with a tremendous understanding of it, and me NOT understanding it at all, and you aren't willing to answer my questions. It's a shame. If this was an "Introductory Algebra" forum and I showed up saying I didn't get it and wasn't sure it really worked, would you likewise leave the forum out of disgust that I didn't already know the subject and hadn't seen proof that Algebra works?? I guess so.

Oh well. See you 'round. ;(

Oh stop with the lame tone trolling.

I'd tell you go to read a basic textbook. But this isn't grade school and I'm not your teacher. Take some responsibility for your own education. If you post the usual ignorant climate truther rubbish, it will be exposed as ignorant rubbish. Perhaps that might be more incentive for you to "learn"... and check the facts first before parroting pseudoscience and conspiracies.

 

[Quaestio]

Yep.
Because no one can reason a man out of something he didn’t reason himself into.

Keep studying reddit. Real hard.

Jack could give him LOTS of links to his favourite conspiracy pseudoscience blogs.

 

[Quaestio]

Well, that fraudulent graph that ThreeGoofs posted was pretty darned persuasive. It's a shame that whoever put it together was lying. It really wasn't my goal to show him that his Climate Change source was peddling false information that he fell for but... over the years... I've seen that SO many times. The lies with regard to Climate Change... There are SO many. The truth always comes through in the end, though. I really believe that.

LOL!!!! The graph Threegoofs posted was by Dr Gavin Schmidt Director of NASA GISS. The only 'fraudulent graph" in this thread is the unpublished dishonest one by Christy that you posted (without a link). I guess you just ignored the post showing how the graphic was extremely misleading. You're turning out to be just another boring old climate truther parroting nonsense.

 

[Quaestio]

Wait.

I thought you’ve been studying this for years?

Now you don’t know anything and need to be educated?

Stick to one story, dude.

I didn't see the claim where he said he had been "studying this for years"

WHAT exactly has he been "studying for years"? Conspiracy blogs? The back of a cereal box?

 

[Quaestio]

How should I know? I don't know you. I only know that one of the people I've been discussing the subject with here just tried to pass fraudulent information to make his case and I was either the only one or maybe just the first one who noticed. Yeah, I'm sure I was only the first one to notice. I can tell that you guys are good people.

As I said, go do a forum search first. Look on your screen where it says "Advanced Search" at the top right of the forum. Threegoofs did not try to "pass fraudulent information". You did. -which you would have known if you had bothered to fact-check your claim first. Clearly, you have shown, in just a brief amount of time, that that's not something you do.

 

[Threegoofs]

I didn't see the claim where he said he had been "studying this for years"

WHAT exactly has he been "studying for years"? Conspiracy blogs? The back of a cereal box?

Reddit.

 

[Quaestio]

Reddit.

:shock: Yeah, that'll do it.

Into the Night posts on Reddit I think. Says a lot for the quality of posters there.

 

[Steve Case]

You guys seem to really put intermittent weather events that are inherently highly variable on 2% of the earths surface area on a major pedestal.

But.. deniers gonna deny.

The United States isn't the world, but it spans North America with a good variety of geography
and topography which makes it a good sub-set of a land mass. World-wide, the US has the best
sampling of weather data of any significant land surface.

 

[Threegoofs]

The United States isn't the world, but it spans North America with a good variety of geography
and topography which makes it a good sub-set of a land mass. World-wide, the US has the best
sampling of weather data of any significant land surface.

It’s the bestest 2%!