Science forum

you were wrong. you can go back to tumblr now

beliefs are a part of reality and thus can be studied scientifically
agree/disagree?

>feeling science

>climate science relies solely on models

Neither do I """"""believe"""""" in it nor do I care.

but there is no evidence for man-made climate change

This. There's a shit load of bot posting. You can use Veeky Forums's built in post filter for most of them at least. I usually just hide the threads I want to follow in catalog and use the hidden catalog instead of the normal catalog.

>because everyone else left out of boredom.

That's literally their goal. To render Veeky Forums unusable.

Good luck doing maths basing on "this feels right"

Here's a tip: do not take the post of any frogtard seriously.

>science forum
>seriously discussing the flat earth

Here's how you know the climate change issue is politically tainted bullshit...

REAL ISSUE:
>I think something deadly is occurring
>I don't believe you
>Well, we need to discuss and debate this publicly, because I'm positive this shit is deadly...you bring your data, I'll bring mine
>I can agree to that

POLITICAL ISSUE:
>I think something deadly is occurring
>I don't believe you
>STUPID CAVEMAN PIECE OF SHIT REEEEE...!1!! HEY EVERYBODY...TELL HIM WHAT A FAGGOT HE IS! ESPECIALLY YOU CELEBRITIES!

I'm getting really sick of this shitty buzzword "climate change". If people would use natural resources wisely, reponsibly, and modestly, and would simply not splurge them, we wouldn't even have any need for most of this fruitless debate. The craze goes up to the point where the administration wants people to drive electric cars when the electricity comes from coal power. Nothing is thought out anymore.

Maybe if all the climate change deniers weren't certifiable retards people wouldn't act like they were retards.

Googling shit like "the sun is the cause of climate change" then repeating the stupid shit you read on the breitbart article that comes up doesn't make you smart it makes you an idiot.

The difference between the people who read the nyt article that says climate change is real and you is the people who read the nyt article don't try to make outrageous claims that they have no comprehension of. They just say let's stop burning coal it's not only bad for the environment but it's also bad for us! You just say COAL!!!! Bring back jawwwwbbbbbbbbs.

Tesla probably spends 90% of their revenue shilling on reddit and the rest of the web.

There's bs on both sides. The corporations, those darn corporations, would like you to believe you have nothing to worry about. Generally you can trust that whatever corporations are saying, the opposite must be true

However, climatologists are full of it as well, trying to scare us into thinking the world would end 20 years ago. And they place their instruments strategically to fudge the statistics.

So frankly my dear I don't give a damn. If this world dies it deserves to die

climate change is an exercise in the hubris of man. Who, mistakenly, believes that they alone can both destroy, and heal, an entire planet. When it the will of God. As proven by the king who passed a law to keep the tide from coming in. They pay dearly for these beliefs, as they delve deeper into their apocalyptic cult, governments eventually execute them for treason like women on waves.

Ice cream? God I love ice cream!

*yawn* I'm sleepy. Climate change? Not real. It's been debunked by news networks like CNN and other totally not fake news networks. Haha. Lets stop talking about this, it's crazy man.

>drive electric cars when the electricity comes from coal power
it's still a massive saving because converting the coal energy to electric is way more efficient if you do it all at once compared with doing it many times within each vehicle

>However, climatologists are full of it as well, trying to scare us into thinking the world would end 20 years ago. And they place their instruments strategically to fudge the statistics.
Can you give me an example of a climatologist doing either? Because you're full of shit.

Al Gore and his team

that depends on so many factors, it can tilt easily

one degree celsius in hundred and ten years, you people know what, I don't give a shit for that

>ask people to sacrifice their livelihoods and futures for your projections
>they demand to know the details
>PISS OFF, PEONS. BRAINLETS WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND.
>oddly enough, they decide you're full of shit
>now you're crying and raging
>WHY WON'T THEY LISTEN?!!

kek

>Al Gore
>climatologist
Yeah you're full of shit.

his team was you moron. he was literally a scientist too. You're just a foul-mouthed shill, whose unaware that there is no formal definition of the term.

Those are just /pol/ troll threads. That board is full of conspiracy theorists that hate reality, and since science is the method that attempts to describe reality they hate science the most.

>ask people to sacrifice their livelihoods and futures for your projections
Nice alarmism

>they demand to know the details
>PISS OFF, PEONS. BRAINLETS WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND.
Global warming is one of the most widely explained theories in science, you delusional nut. If you don't want to read the scientific papers you can read wikipedia or any number of layman explanations. You're just spouting nonsense opposite to reality.

>you can read wikipedia
Veeky Forums is this stupid, poor, and pathetic

but there is some grain of truth in it

I'm a biologist and I could explain to a smoker why he will get cancer and I could easily debunk all his ridiculous or ignorant claims. And I explain it to him even in easy words calm and polite.

But when I ask climate change alarmists for stuff like heat islands or how 100 year old data is still valid to be fit with modern measurements, they turn angry or hateful or look at me like "you are destroying our planet you evil asshole liar"

It's not that I'm a environmental polluter, not in any way, I actually try to avoid trash, try to buy ecological friendly goods, dont do unnecessary car rides, dont fly much, etc, etc. But seems to me, the "good old protecting the environment", which is totally logical to me, is no longer important for those climate people. All they want to do is scream high pitch and ban and accuse.

Its an epistemic problem. Everything you know about climate science is something you heard.

Lets look at each claim philosophically:
> the earth is warming.
This is hard to tell, but certainly possible, with careful measurement and unbiased sampling.
> the earth will continue warming and some natural process won't adjust.
The earth is very good at regulating its temperature and processes, this seems difficult to know.
> Earth's warming is caused by CO2.
Establishing casual relationships beyond statistical correlations is very difficult.
> Earth's warming will be bad.
Impossible to know this. Too many variables like when biologist try and balance some animal in an ecology.
> We can stop Earth's warming be mediating certain activities.
How do we know this?
Nothing involving so many variables is so cut and dry which is why economists can't predict anything, geologists can't agree on anything, etc. There are probably only a handful of people in the world with enough first hand knowledge to actually have an informed opinion that wasn't just someones word for it.

> the earth is warming and is caused by CO2.
This i

>his team was you moron.
Who is on this supposed team and which climatologist told Gore to say that the world would end? Where are the climatologists who place instruments in order to fudge the data? Is it really so hard to actually back up your retarded claims with an example?

>Claims climatology is not being explained
>Gets rekt
>MUH WIKIPEDIA

>But when I ask climate change alarmists for stuff like heat islands
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

>or how 100 year old data is still valid to be fit with modern measurements
Why would it be invalid? The reason we don't go back farther is because the instrumental data is either not standardized enough or does not have a wide enough spread to reproduce global temperatures.

I find it hard to believe that such simple questions have never been answered wit anything but anger. It seems you are just ignoring the real answers and beating straw men.

Way to prove his strawman right, I guess.

>the earth will continue warming and some natural process won't adjust.
>The earth is very good at regulating its temperature and processes, this seems difficult to know.
This is backwards logic. The temperature that the Earth is usually at is maintained because the factors which drive the climate did not rapidly change. If they rapidly change, then the climate rapidly changes. There is nothing to regulate our rapid emissions of greenhouse gasses except for ourselves. If you have an understanding of the climate that says otherwise, I'd like to hear it.

>Earth's warming is caused by CO2.
>Establishing casual relationships beyond statistical correlations is very difficult.
The greenhouse effect is fundamental chemistry and thermodynamics. You don't appear to have a clue about what you're "thinking" about.

>Earth's warming will be bad.
>Impossible to know this. Too many variables like when biologist try and balance some animal in an ecology.
This doesn't respond to what climatologists argue, which is that warming will have certain effects like increasing sea levels, increasing drought, ocean acidification, extreme weather, etc and these effects are mostly bad. Why is it impossible to know the effects of rapidly warming the Earth?

>We can stop Earth's warming be mediating certain activities.
>How do we know this?
Because we know which factors drive the climate at a global scale over such time frames.

>Nothing involving so many variables is so cut and dry which is why economists can't predict anything, geologists can't agree on anything, etc.
Nothing? So we don't understand anything about complex systems? Do you actually believe this? This entire post seems to deny that science exists and works.

>Why would it be invalid?
if you don't know any possible answer yourself, then you better don't talk about climate

>berkeley

has the same finding been reproduced?
>the effect is there, but is has no impact
again this is not logical

>if you don't know any possible answer yourself
I just said why older measurements would be invalid, moron. Your hypocrisy is staggering.

yet we use older measurements, even in your beloved berkely thing they boast to use data from back as the 1800s

and the heat island thing is not only in cities, it occurs also in every rural repeated query measurement

>moron
>hypocrisy
this is why I dont believe the climate people. as soon as you start calling other people names, it makes you implausible

>has the same finding been reproduced?
There are a large amount of papers showing the UHI is localized and thus removed by homogenization. See page 243-245:

ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

>yet we use older measurements,
Are you incapable of following simple lines of argument? Older data is used only to the extend that it is sufficiently standardized and global. Now, I'll ask again, how is the data invalid?

>and the heat island thing is not only in cities, it occurs also in every rural repeated query measurement
It is most prominent in cities, that's why it's called the Urban Heat Island effect. But I would like to see the research showing that it exists everywhere rural and effects the trend. I'll wait.

>wants me to read endless wiki and ipcc articles when I'm tired like a donkey

listen man, why dont you show me a land based temperature measurement station, that is queryied since 110 years constantly and regularly, and that is rural, and that had zero changes in surrounding pavement and stock of trees around it, and post all its dataloggers raw data?
this board is full of mathemagicians that will work on the data.

As soon as you complain about insults on Veeky Forums and ignore the content of my post, I know you're arguing in bad faith. Thanks for the heads up.

no. you ignored totally my point and even said you had used it yourself.

>Endless
>Not even two pages
Anytime you want to admit you have no argument that's fine, just don't exaggerate everything so that you can have a fake tantrum and run away. It's laughable how you demand something, then are given it, then complain that you were given what you asked for and move the goalposts.

>why dont you show me a land based temperature measurement station, that is queryied since 110 years constantly and regularly, and that is rural, and that had zero changes in surrounding pavement and stock of trees around it, and post all its dataloggers raw data?
Why don't you first explain how adjustments to temperature data do not address this? Since you don't appear to have the slightest clue what you're talking about, try starting with this:

judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

have you ever made temperature measurements in rural surroundings? i did. even mowing gives you 2 degrees celsius.

Your point was that I could not think of ways in which older temperature data could be flawed when in the sentence directly after the one you quoted I gave two. So how exactly did I ignore your point? Your point was invalidated by the post you replied to.

Instead of responding to this and actually explaining why you think the temperature data from the 1850s is flawed, you complained about me insulting you and claimed this reflected on my argument. You argue like a child. I'm still waiting for a relevant response.

>data adjustment
yeah go on, if you do this with blood cells, your patient dies

>have you ever made temperature measurements in rural surroundings? i did. even mowing gives you 2 degrees celsius.
This doesn't respond to the post you're replying to, where is the evidence of UHI in rural areas effecting the national or global trend?

For a response to other temperature station effects, see

you insulted me and then you say I'M the child?
you sure got nerves.

Do you really think this post had any value in supporting your position?

>you insulted me and then you say I'M the child?
Yes. If you don't understand why the explanation is right there in the post. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

> A scientific theory could only be false if there was a big conspiracy behind it.
Don't you ever get tired of babbling your Leftest memes?

the evidence is clear.
every place of measurement that is frequently queried, is changed, architectonically, vegetatively, cutting down one fucking tree in the neighborhood of the weather station could create not only the one degree over 100 years, but even more. the longer used the apparatus, the bigger it's errors, if it is replaced, it has a new error, yadayadayada.

listen user, you can go on calling people names on the internet and pasting articles without having your own ideas, but you wont become a convincing partner in an argument

>Do you really think this post had any value in supporting your position?
it's enough if it weakens yours
my point was already proven since an hour or so

Speculation is not evidence. For example, evidence would be a project which analyzes temperature stations for micro-site biases and then compares the best sited stations to all the data. Let's try googling for microsite analysis (I know it's very hard to open google and look for evidence to support your position, so I'll do it for you). Oh look, here's a study that did that:

www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

And yes, it finds a clear bias in the temperature stations!

Oh wait, it seems that it's a slight cooling bias. Oh well I guess it supports the exact opposite of what you claim... So I can see why someone would not even try to look for evidence when it keeps proving the opposite of what they're trying to claim.

Reddit plz go

>the evidence is clear.
Asserting that evidence exists isn't the same as presenting it.

>every place of measurement that is frequently queried, is changed, architectonically, vegetatively, cutting down one fucking tree in the neighborhood of the weather station could create not only the one degree over 100 years...
It's a good thing no-one relies on a single measuring station then, isn't it?

Your argument seems to boil down to "I don't trust that climatologists know how to do their jobs, because I don't know how to do it either".

>it's enough if it weakens yours
It doesn't. "BUT AJUSTMIUNTS!" is probably the least convincing response you could possibly have made.

>my point was already proven since an hour or so
No.

I don't see how insulting you for spouting nonsense and not having my own ideas is a bad thing in a discussion about scientific facts. Being polite and original (which you aren't) doesn't help you if you're simply wrong about what you're talking about.

>majority of users don't believe in man-made climate change

Do you have a citation for this claim?

>implying climate change supporters have any comprehension of the claims they make either

>global warming is one of the most explained theories

Try again. There is no central theory for agw. Just wildly inaccurate models saying two things are correlated. I can do the same thing for water consumption vs. Global warming too.

I don't understand how these retards come onto Veeky Forums to deny well evidenced theories, won't post any scientific evidence to support their claims, get handed everything they want, and yet still claim they have the intellectual high ground. It boggles the mind.

Why do you keep repeating this lie? You know it's false, but you do it anyway.

>Just wildly inaccurate models

realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

>saying two things are correlated.
So you deny the greenhouse effect exists? Because it's a completely causative explanation that is proven directly via fundamental physics, thermodynamics, and measured directly through radiative spectroscopy.

>the greenhouse effect is fundamental chemistry and thermodynamics

Nobody will argue that co2 is good for trapping heat. The problem is that there's not enough co2 to explain the warming so models use all these crazy scaling factors with bulls hit reasons.

At the end of the day, there's no meaningful relationship between the two.

>The problem is that there's not enough co2 to explain the warming so models use all these crazy scaling factors with bulls hit reasons.
These scaling factors are just feedback loops which are as fundamental as the greenhouse effect. So do you deny that warmer oceans release more water vapor and CO2? Because that also need to throw out the explanation for how interglacial warming occurs in addition to AGW. I'm just trying to pinpoint which of the basic scientific facts underlying climatology you deny.

I dunno, count me on the believer side.

>Try again. There is no central theory for agw. Just wildly inaccurate models saying two things are correlated.
That's literally the Greenhouse effect. At least read a Wikipedia article or something before claiming an entire field of science is wrong.

>It boggles the mind.
Really? I'd be far more surprised if they admitted to not having a clue.

>Nobody will argue that co2 is good for trapping heat. The problem is that there's not enough co2 to explain the warming so models use all these crazy scaling factors with bulls hit reasons.
The "crazy scaling factors" are well supported by the climate record.

It's not accurate when it can't predict temperature well year after year. The only thing good about it is that it predicts an overall warming. I can approximate curves with lines too. This failure would be rejected in any other field.

There's solid science that cloud cover also increases temperature. Just because the process is known doesn't mean it's the cause.

We know there's been a large increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution.

We know the CO2 increase is mostly our fault because of the isotope signatures. Plus from just measuring how much CO2 we tend to put out, I'm guessing.

We know that CO2 is invisible to the visible spectrum of light, while it absorbs the infrared spectrum. We know that when the earth absorbs visible light from the sun it reflects it as infrared light, where it is either shot into space or absorbed by something else.

We know that there's a vested interested in maintaining the status quo. There are very large short term financial and political advantages to spreading disinformation and doubt.

>We know
you are a shill

First of all, I reject the data on surface temps. Interpolation and omission of data prevents us from seeing accurate temperatures.

Secondly, if the model is sensitive to the relatively low emissions, it also needs to be sensitive to other things like transient events, abnormal solar activity, other natural things. It's just not there.

Compare this with a many body system in mechanics, or any other system which is chaotic. Those things can give incredibly accurate predictions despite the complexity. I don't see it here. The whole field is literally a meme.

>It's not accurate when it can't predict temperature well year after year.
No one is trying to predict temperature year after year. The theory of AGW does not say that the temperature will increase year after year, it says it will increase on the scale of centuries. Once again, you show your ignorance on the topic you're attempting to refute.

>The only thing good about it is that it predicts an overall warming.
That's clearly false as the models predict warming within a certain range, not simply warming. This is because it posits how certain factors drive the climate.

>This failure would be rejected in any other field.
What failure?

>There's solid science that cloud cover also increases temperature.
So surely cloud cover has increased with temperature? No, no it hasn't. Try again.

>Just because the process is known doesn't mean it's the cause.
It's the cause because it explains the warming and no other factors do. If you have an alternative theory I suggest you post it. Otherwise, you're not arguing anything. Just saying it could be wrong when it is clearly well evidenced and unopposed. The Earth could also be flat.

>Interpolation and omission of data prevents us from seeing accurate temperatures.
According to what analysis?

>Secondly, if the model is sensitive to the relatively low emissions
Low relative to what?

>it also needs to be sensitive to other things like transient events, abnormal solar activity, other natural things.
Of course the climate is sensitive to many natural factors. But which transient events explain the current long term warming trend? Solar activity has been decreasing for decades while temperature rises. Instead of just speculating, why don't you actually present an opposing argument? Where is your competing model?

>Compare this with a many body system in mechanics, or any other system which is chaotic. Those things can give incredibly accurate predictions despite the complexity.
Some things are too chaotic to predict and some things are not. The climate over a long term, global scale is less chaotic and thus allows us to determine the major factors that drive it. And we have been accurately predicting the trend for several decades, as I've shown you. You aren't arguing honestly.

>First of all, I reject the data on surface temps.
Rejecting the best dataset we have doesn't make your argument seem very credible.

>Interpolation and omission of data prevents us from seeing accurate temperatures.
Raw data is almost always publicly available.

>Secondly, if the model is sensitive to the relatively low emissions, it also needs to be sensitive to other things like transient events, abnormal solar activity, other natural things.
What makes you think that the current emissions rates are low? They're incredibly large compared to natural (net) emissions.

>No one is trying to predict temperature year after year. The theory of AGW does not say that the temperature will increase year after year, it says it will increase on the scale of centuries.
Wrong. No climate model predicts centuries out. The predictions published in agw papers show predictions year over year.

>That's clearly false as the models predict warming within a certain range, not simply warming. This is because it posits how certain factors drive the climate.
Obviously there's uncertainty associated with it, but they make definite predictions such as +.5c by 2050. Different models make different predictions which in turn give a range but eventually only one model should be accepted, otherwise it's a shit theory.

>What failure?
The failure to accurately predict the trends in temperature. Other than "it's an upward trend", the predictions have failed spectacularly. with more than 100% deviation from observation in some cases. This is unacceptable.

>So surely cloud cover has increased with temperature? No, no it hasn't. Try again.
That's a false implication.

>It's the cause because it explains the warming and no other factors do. If you have an alternative theory I suggest you post it

Just because it explains it, doesn't mean it's a cause. Water consumption has increased exponentially as well. i could make a graph with water consumption vs. temperature and come to the same conclusion that global temps are rising.

The simpler theory is that the data is incorrect and the models are wrong. There is no global increase in temperature that can't be explained by natural cycle in the climate. The pattern we see now has repeated itself many times before. Just because we are here to see it doesn't mean we're responsible for it.

>i could make a graph with water consumption vs. temperature and come to the same conclusion that global temps are rising.
Yeah but after you make that graph you need to explain what link water consumption and global temperature has. The link between greenhouse gasses and temp is already explained.

>The predictions published in agw papers show predictions year over year.
What? Which papers?

>Obviously there's uncertainty associated with it, but they make definite predictions such as +.5c by 2050.
If you read the actual paper, it will say something like "+.5C (+/ 0.1C) by 2050", which is a range.

>but eventually only one model should be accepted, otherwise it's a shit theory.
Why? It's not unusual for scientific fields to use a bunch of models with different strengths and weaknesses.
The map is not the terrain etc.

>Just because it explains it, doesn't mean it's a cause.
That is literally what that word means.

I think what you're trying to say is "just because their correlated doesn't mean it's a cause", in which case good work?
We have far strong reasons to think that CO2 levels impact surface temperatures than just correlation. AGW makes actual predictions, like stratospheric cooling, a reduction in day/night temperature spread (I think?) and a decrease in outgoing IR.

>The simpler theory is that the data is incorrect and the models are wrong.
That's not simpler at all. You'd need to provide other, currently unknown, mechanisms in order to explain the shit we're seeing now.

>There is no global increase in temperature that can't be explained by natural cycle in the climate.
I don't know how to respond to this beyond "no".

>The pattern we see now has repeated itself many times before.
When?
Can you point to any point in time when the Earth's climate has behaved like this?

>Wrong. No climate model predicts centuries out. The predictions published in agw papers show predictions year over year.
This doesn't respond to what I said. AGW is a century-scale warming. The resolution of a model does not imply that climatologists are trying to accurately predict the trend from year to year.

>Obviously there's uncertainty associated with it, but they make definite predictions such as +.5c by 2050.
That's what I said. You claimed they are just predicting warming overall when they are predicting a specific range of warming.

>Different models make different predictions which in turn give a range but eventually only one model should be accepted, otherwise it's a shit theory.
There is a standard model published by the IPCC. Having different models doesn't matter since they all show agreement with the theory.

>The failure to accurately predict the trends in temperature.
I just gave you several models that have been successfully predicting the trend for decades.

>Other than "it's an upward trend", the predictions have failed spectacularly.
Again, they predict a specific range, stop lying.

>That's a false implication.
You attempted to argue that global warming could be caused by a different factor like cloud cover, when it cannot. What did I falsely imply?

>Just because it explains it, doesn't mean it's a cause.
You just repeated the same fallacy I responded to in what you're quoting. It's not simply that CO2 explains the current warming trend, it's ALSO that there is no other explanation.

>Water consumption has increased exponentially as well.
So then explain how water consumption or any other factor you want explains the current trend better. You don't seem to understand how logical arguments or science works.

>The simpler theory is that the data is incorrect and the models are wrong.
This is not a theory as you have given no evidence to support it.

what are you and other climate alarmists actually trying so hard to prove? why are you guys so emotionally invested in this?

>There is no global increase in temperature that can't be explained by natural cycle in the climate.
There is no natural cycle that can explain the current trend. This is what climatologists have found. If you disagree, present a competing explanation. Until then you are just talking out of your ass. Why do you keep repeating the same fallacy over and over again when everyone can see you are not providing a balanced argument?

>The pattern we see now has repeated itself many times before.
Warming this rapid is unprecedented. Try again.

>Just because we are here to see it doesn't mean we're responsible for it.
And again you completely ignore that this is not the argument being made. No climatologist says that "just" correlation proves we are responsible for it. Are you capable of considering multiple lines of evidence in your head at once? It appears not.

>>If we don't fix these issues, terrible things X, Y, and possibly Z will happen!
>why are you guys so emotionally invested in this?
Really?

>what are you and other climate alarmists actually trying so hard to prove?
It seems evident if you read the conversation. You can read can't you?

>why are you guys so emotionally invested in this?
Why are you denying climatology when you clearly have no good reason for doing so? It seems that the only one emotionally invested here is you. I'm just pointing out that you are spreading misinformation and nonsense on a science board. Why?

15000 scientists just waned us... again.

Who cares what the idiots willing to risk an entire planet think. I say shoot them dead and watch the average intelligence of the world rise with each.

if those things are going to happen, then they are probably going to happen anyway, the most we can probably do is minimize the damage, however being overly dramatic and intolerable is not going help anyone get anywhere.

I never even stated my position on climate change. I'm simply asking why you idiots get so dogmatic when someone disagrees, or is the slightest bit skeptical.

you treat belief in climate change like a cult.

shoot anyone who dares to think different? that sounds familiar.

>I never even stated my position on climate change.
As if it's not patently obvious by your idiotic framing.

>I'm simply asking why you idiots get so dogmatic when someone disagrees, or is the slightest bit skeptical.
Are you delusional? I presented evidence to support my claims, my opponents did not. They are dogmatic. It is not skepticism to deny a scientific theory for no reason other than your wish for it to be wrong.

Here's the IPCC's aggregate of models and observations.

If you make 50+ models in a range of +- 2 degrees, obviously you're going to have the observation fall in that range.

But no single model predicts a range besides the fact that they can't be 100% confident of their prediction. Saying you're 95% sure the temperature will rise .5-.6 degrees is different than saying you're 95% sure that it'll rise .5 degrees +- some uncertainty. Do you even into statistics?

If AGW is a credible theory, it will have predictive power. Without that, it should be dismissed. If you take 100 different models and some are right sometimes, you can't really say you've confirmed your theory.

>hat's not simpler at all. You'd need to provide other, currently unknown, mechanisms in order to explain the shit we're seeing now.
You don't need mechanisms to explain shit that isn't happening. The NOAA has been on full damage control since last year.

>The pattern we see now has repeated itself many times before.
>When?
look at the global temp history for the last x million years. It's cyclical, and has varied more rapidly and more severely than in the last 120 years.

>You just repeated the same fallacy I responded to in what you're quoting.
No. The other explanation is that there is no warming. I can make correlations between any number of things. I can take that data and fit the graph. You don't necessarily have to understand what the connection is even. If you think you need to know the significance of a the model before you validate it, you're wrong. More often than not, models and observation have been used to create theories than the other way around.

The only bad logic and science in this discussion is the blind support of AGW.

I don't know what world you live in where known bad data, shitty models and political agenda imply causation.

It's ok though. In 50 years, this will all blow over and we can have a good laugh.

>As if it's not patently obvious by your idiotic framing.
Not really, you're merely projecting.

The next time you ask yourself why people "deny science" look in the mirror, it because people would rather let the world burn than have to deal with people like you.

...