Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by Metal Brain


You are a liar!

You seem to shout 'liar' to ANY science expert that says anything about science that is contrary to your massively science-ignorant opinion.
Has it ever occurred to you that such people may not be lying and your ignorant opinion may be simply wrong?
What are you science credentials?
Have you studied science at university?
Don't bother answering that; we can all easily see the answer from your moronic posts.
I accept there exists many people a lot smarter than me that know much I do not; why cannot you do the same? You are delusionally arrogant.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"There was a skeptical science link embedded in the article, but it had nothing to do with the data"

You are a liar. Skeptical science is their source and I never asked for data from that link and you know it.

You are a liar!

Data, statistics, information, etc. are synonyms as they apply to this subject matter. The article in question [1] did not use skeptical science as a source of information. You claimed that it did, and that is wrong. Everyone here has access to the article, so you are losing credibility as a skeptic by sticking to this.

Here is the disputed quote from the article.

There’s a common myth [2] that models are unreliable, often based on apples-to-oranges comparisons, like looking at satellite estimates of temperatures higher in the atmosphere versus modeled surface air temperatures...... This new study [3] has shown that when we do an apples-to-apples comparison, climate models have done a good job projecting the observed temperatures where humans live.

An objective reader of this paragraph should recognize the first sentence only serves to establish context regarding the myth. The linked article argues that the climate model inaccuracy myth is unfounded, yet the content is not used to draw a conclusion and is therefore irrelevant to the Guardian article's thesis. The new source of information, and the reason the article was written, is in the latter sentence. This study provided the actual information (with statistics and data and evidence) that climate models are reasonably accurate. Can you appreciate that distinction?

It's intellectually dishonest to declare an entire study is "bunk" based on the credibility of a reference that does not impact any of the article's conclusions.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought
[2] https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
[3] http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/grl53276.pdf

Originally posted by humy
You seem to shout 'liar' to ANY science expert that says anything about science that is contrary to your massively science-ignorant opinion.
Has it ever occurred to you that such people may not be lying and your ignorant opinion may be simply wrong?
What are you science credentials?
Have you studied science at university?
Don't bother answering that; we ca ...[text shortened]... rter than me that know much I do not; why cannot you do the same? You are delusionally arrogant.

You are not a science expert. You are a liar though.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Data, statistics, information, etc. are synonyms as they apply to this subject matter. The article in question [1] did not use skeptical science as a source of information. You claimed that it did, and that is wrong. Everyone here has access to the article, so you are losing credibility as a skeptic by sticking to this.

Here is the disputed quote from t ...[text shortened]... odels.htm
[3] http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/grl53276.pdf

"The article in question [1] did not use skeptical science as a source of information. You claimed that it did, and that is wrong."

You are lying. The words "common myth" contain the skeptical science link. That is their source of information and it is there for all to see. You are the one losing credibility.

Why do you avoid my "predicting the past" thread like the plague if you honestly believe you are right about climate models being reliable? You avoid it because you do not want an honest discussion about climate models.

Predicting the future has to be right the first time as opposed to predicting the past. You are very dishonest!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are not a science expert. You are a liar though.

He has at least a MS in science and I think working on Phd maybe even finished it by now. Obviously not climate science though.

Do you have a degree in science?

Originally posted by sonhouse
He has at least a MS in science and I think working on Phd maybe even finished it by now. Obviously not climate science though.

Do you have a degree in science?

Irrelevant. You claimed that Freeman Dyson is not qualified to have an opinion on GW and he has better qualifications than humy. Besides, if ignorance is bliss humy must be in a permanent state of euphoria. He did not even know CO2 lagged behind temps in the ice core samples.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/

Breitbart.com is certainly a trusted source of unbiased scientific data?

This article was sent to me recently. It seems to explain this conversation somewhat.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/explaining_science_won_t_fix_information_illiteracy.html

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/

EDIT to prior post. The linked study in this article is actually pretty good [1] and comprehensive, but I don't think it says what you think it says Metal Brain. The writer of that Breitbart piece did a disservice to the data.


66% of respondents attribute >50% of global warming since the mid-20th century to human induced increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations.
- 97.6% of those respondents expressed at least "likely" confidence that anthropogenic GHG contribution to global warming was >50%
- 65.2% of those respondents expressed with an "extreme likelihood" of confidence that anthropogenic GHG contribution to global warming was >50%.
65% of respondents characterized greenhouse gases as a strong contributor to the 0.8 degrees of warming since pre-industrial times.
95% of respondents are concerned about climate change as a long term global problem.
3.1% of respondents attribute >50% of global warming since mid-20th century to the sun. (which is your theory, right?)
85% of respondents said that climate models are useful in allowing projections of future climate.

[1] http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

Originally posted by Metal Brain
[b]IYou claimed that Freeman Dyson is not qualified to have an opinion on GW and he has better qualifications than humy. /b]

as far as I am aware, nobody here is claiming anyone is not allowed to have an opinion on science, even if it is based on science-ignorance.
You have an opinion on science based on ignorance for you obviously haven't studied it properly at higher education while I have. Thus your own assertions that imply I am not qualified applies far more to you than to me so if I am not qualified to have an opinion on it then certainly you are not! That makes you a massive hypocrite for implying I shouldn't have an option on it when you do despite your greater ignorance.

if you are now arguing that Freeman Dyson is both better qualified than me to have an opinion on GW (which he is although he has some opinions contrary to those better qualified than himself) then he surely will be better qualified than YOU to have an opinion on GW (you have no science credentials while I do) and yet, although he has the opinion that climate models are 'unreliable', he disagrees with your science ignorant opinion that man isn't the cause of GW;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

Dyson AGREES that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas." (my emphasis)

So, he AGREES with me that there is man made GW and thus DISAGREES with you on this; he is better qualified than you to have an opinion on this than you are. So how can you argue climate BOTH models are 'unreliable' because he has a quaffed opinion that they are AND there is no man made GW despite his qualified opinion that there is man made GW? You cannot have it both ways; if you are using his option that climate models are unreliable as evidence that climate models are unreliable, then, by your same 'logic', his opinion that there is man made GW must be evidence that there is man made GW.

Originally posted by humy
as far as I am aware, nobody here is claiming anyone is not allowed to have an opinion on science, even if it is based on science-ignorance.
You have an opinion on science based on ignorance for you obviously haven't studied it properly at higher education while I have. Thus your own assertions that imply I am not qualified applies far more to you than to me s ...[text shortened]... same 'logic', his opinion that there is man made GW must be evidence that there is man made GW.

You have no idea what my educational level is. You simply ASSUME yours is higher because I have repeatedly refused to disclose my educational level. Since you have no respect for those with higher education than yours it is irrelevant. This is what I have maintained all along and rightly so. Even climate scientist's opinions are dismissed by you simply because you disagree with them. FAIL!

Originally posted by wildgrass
Breitbart.com is certainly a trusted source of unbiased scientific data?

This article was sent to me recently. It seems to explain this conversation somewhat.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/explaining_science_won_t_fix_information_illiteracy.html

Politically biased junk not fit for the science forum. As I pointed out before, climate scientists do not disagree with Trump, just scientists that are mislead by the corporate news media just as much as any uneducated individuals.

Show me a poll of climate scientists that asks specific questions without deliberately misleading questions.

Originally posted by wildgrass
EDIT to prior post. The linked study in this article is actually pretty good [1] and comprehensive, but I don't think it says what you think it says Metal Brain. The writer of that Breitbart piece did a disservice to the data.


66% of respondents attribute >50% of global warming since the mid-20th century to human induced increases in atmospheric GHG c ...[text shortened]... /default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

I can't open PDFs at the library. Do you have a link you can share without PDFs?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You have no idea what my educational level is.

false; at least regarding your education specifically on science; just reading your moronic posts about science gives us all a very good clue.

I have repeatedly refused to disclose my educational level.

And we very obviously all know why you refuse; you are certainly no science expert. Obviously, you refusing confirms this for there is no other creditable motive for your refusal.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I can't open PDFs at the library. Do you have a link you can share without PDFs?

I just clicked on the link to the data provided in the Breitbart article. I'm sorry, but I can't find a non-PDF version of it.

It's even better juxtaposed with the Breitbart article, which completely distorted the results for political purposes.