Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

Some people need help reading actual facts

Others like to lazily post a link and pray no one asks where specifically within that link makes their case.

 

The you tube video broke down how they came to the 97% using actual facts.

 

Try reading a little....There is a reason the models refer to outputs as constants. Too many variables causes model degradation. You assert authoritative knowledge here, and yet you'd risk saying something like the above in the absence of this context?

Solar activity changes, and perhaps in a seemingly predictable way, but the data set that establishes this is new, s constantly being vilified by climate science folks who are too narrowly focused on how to allow governments to rape the economies to "pay for" climate change.

 

So, don't you have to be on that list to get grants from the US Gov? Cause that isn't a conflict of interest.....

 

You have not busted anything. You keep pretending that I am saying something different and then arguing that you proved that alternative claim wrong. And hell, you aren't even proving that non-climatologists have a different belief or that non-publishing climatologists have a different belief. You just keep confirming that 97% of actively publishing climatologists agree that the Earth is Warming and that Humans are a significant contributor.

Of those two primary points, which do you think is not true?

 

Never rely on a Youtube video to explain a conspiracy theory.

 

No grants no research money. No research money, no job. How do you keep job? Make sure the grant money keeps flowing. Rinse repeat. Scientists aren’t stupid. It’s a comfortable life style not having to be correct and be rewarded for failures. And it’s also reassuring that you can be rewarded for trying to predict the future, right or wrong. Your research can lead somewhere or it doesn’t have to. Either way you get paid as long as you can convince those handing out the money that you’re just not quite sure....yet, and need more time. And luckily many really want to be assured that there is a danger and you might have answers for them. Well, that will last your whole life. It’s a great arrangement if you can swing it.

My coworkers girl friend studies lizards. She’s been paid to “study” them in various places for over 10years now. Was a student until she was 30. This was after she got grants to pay for PHDs to study these lizards. And after all this time and I asked him what she’s discovered? He said....uuuum nothing. What is she looking for exactly? He’s not sure. So what is her job I ask again. To study lizards in the hopes she discovers something. For a cure to something? Not really. Then what? Hope. She doesn’t get paid a lot but she’s being paid. And eventually she’ll slip into a nice university job at some point where she can teach others to study lizards or some other BS.

 

Then you can quote the relevant portion. The "relevant" portion from your article "debunking" Cook is where they point out that Cook did not try and fabricate a position for the articles when no position was taken and that statistical sampling is a reason to dispute the conclusion.

 

You think Trump is giving out grants specifically because the scientific groups have publicly espoused a position of support for AGW?

 

It's a really dumb argument.

Even if Climate Change was proven to be a hoax, the scientists who currently get research money would not lose a single penny. They would simply study how it is that 97% of actively publishing climatologists could have been fooled by the data.

 

Of course I have., Your 97% scientist fallacy.

Tell you what Legal, you quote yourself saying the 97% of the scientists were only actively paper posting climate scientists before I exposed it and I'll happily admit you weren't trying to conceal with the real numbers.

Go ahead Legal. We both know you never did so this show you are putting on is amusing.

 

No it is the quite relevant question. How do you know another degree hotter is not perfect?

 

They obviously miss the known unknowns and unknown unknowns. For example, the CO2 hypothesis by the IPCC does not take into account solar variability but only TSI which they give low variability. The effects of solar variability is not well known.

 

Then let's stop worrying about what it is then.

 

It’s no hoax. We know the cure. Stop China and India from destroying the world and the Asian continent from killing all the fish. But no one will stand up to them and now it’s too late. China has purchased everything everywhere. They own mines, food supplies. And if EU is stupid enough to allow it, entire swaths of the WWW if they get the claws on all the server structure. And we know how cool they are with free speech and flow of information. And we also know how well they treat their people. Quite fantastic I recall...derp.

 

My pleasure



Perhaps Pelosi can get the House to pass some emergency funding to get them removed.

 

You accused me of lying. You don't get to force me to prove that I was not lying. This is the only comment that I have made on this thread about the consensus before you and every other jackwagon decided that they could be the 1800th person to "debunk" the 97% claim.

Now find me a single time where I said "97% of scientists agree with AGW" or you can go amuse yourself in a corner.

 

No. People are not going to stop worrying about climate change simply because there is no such thing as a "perfect" or "correct" temperature.

 

China and India are doing more to address Climate Change than America.

 

Would you like to explain how the IPCC is not taking into account something while also assigning that something a low variability?

 

Like building new coal power plants and the fastest rise in coal use?

 

There is literally no such thing as a perfect or correct temperature.

However, there are ranges of temperatures during which the vast majority of currently existing plants and animals evolved and learned to thrive. If you dramatically and rapidly alter that range, then the currently existing plants and animals (including Humans) will suffer significant consequences.

 

Duh, because they are not the same thing.

 

Quote me saying that. Making things up won't help you.

hahaha Thanks for proving you couldn't prove you were ever honest about the 97% number. In fact your own link did that for me.

 

By pursuing policies that try to promote renewable energies (China and India) instead of pursuing policies that try to prop up dying coal plants (America).