[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
I am not doing this again.

Sure you are. Look:

You continuously ignore actual evidence, refuse to support your claims with evidence, and make outlandish claims about conspiracies.

See?

I in fact did not ignore actual evidence, I explained what it meant; I in fact supported my claims with evidence, including the evidence that YOUR OWN SOURCE provided, but whose nature and significance you did not and still do not understand; and I in fact made no outlandish claims about conspiracies: the climategate emails were prima facie evidence of an informal international conspiracy to falsify climatological research -- the whole point of releasing them was that they demonstrated that to be the case.

Until you support your claims and criticisms with actual evidence, there is no point in “debating” this with you.

I explained the evidence, and you know it.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

I am not doing this again.

You continuously ignore actual evidence, refuse to support your claims with evidence, and make outlandish claims about conspiracies.

Until you support your claims and criticisms with actual evidence, there is no point in “debating” this with you.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

I am not doing this again.

Is there an echo in here?

You continuously ignore actual evidence, refuse to support your claims with evidence, and make outlandish claims about conspiracies.

Until you support your claims and criticisms with actual evidence, there is no point in “debating” this with you.

I'm doing this again ;^)

I explained the evidence, it's here in the thread where everyone can see it, and you know it.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

I am not doing this again.

You continuously ignore actual evidence, refuse to support your claims with evidence, and make outlandish claims about conspiracies.

Until you support your claims and criticisms with actual evidence, there is no point in “debating” this with you.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
I am not doing this again.

You just did.

You continuously ignore actual evidence, refuse to support your claims with evidence, and make outlandish claims about conspiracies.

Already refuted.

Until you support your claims and criticisms with actual evidence, there is no point in “debating” this with you.

Already refuted.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please see my previous post. Thank you.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Wow. I don't think i've ever seen such a butt-hurt example of capitulation and failure in all of my POFO days.

[Pants-of-dog]

Wow. I don't think i've ever seen such a butt-hurt example of capitulation and failure in all of my POFO days.

So, these are the unsupported claims so far by the global warming denialists:

1a. The models do not take the previous hothouse eras into account, and...
1b. ...this makes the models wrong or useless.

2. The models and the graph from the LIA Wikipedia page are all the result of a worldwide conspiracy of climatologists and other scientists, who are cooking the books for some vague but nefarious purpose.

3. The models make wrong predictions.

Here are the claims which have been shown to be wrong:

The claim that the current rate of change is the same as the one preceding the LIA has been shown to be wrong using two different pieces of evidence.

I also showed that it is wrong to claim that there would be more biodiversity as a result of ACC. There would be less, according to the evidence.

While I would not consider your inability or refusal to supoort your points to be an example of you being butthurt, it is an example of capitulation and failure.

[Victoribus Spolia]

While I would not consider your inability or refusal to supoort your points to be an example of you being butthurt, it is an example of capitulation and failure.

You've just childishly made a copy-and-paste tantrum of refusing to debate TTP. The thread speaks for itself and its glorious, but please, go ahead and repeat yourself. You've been amply addressed.

[Pants-of-dog]

You've just childishly made a copy-and-paste tantrum of refusing to debate TTP. The thread speaks for itself and its glorious, but please, go ahead and repeat yourself. You've been amply addressed.

As long as we agree that you have failed to support your claims and therefore are capitulating.

And since @Truth To Power is not debating either (i.e. he refuses to provide evidence), and you refuse to call him on it, I can only assume you have some weird fascination with me.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As long as we agree that you have failed to support your claims and therefore are capitulating.

We do not agree because I already supported my claims and you have refused to deal with them.

@Pants-of-dog

I am not doing this again.

You continuously ignore actual evidence, refuse to support your claims with evidence, and make outlandish claims about conspiracies.

Until you support your claims and criticisms with actual evidence, there is no point in “debating” this with you.

[Pants-of-dog]

We do not agree because I already supported my claims and you have refused to deal with them.

No. For example, you have still not provided any evidence at all to supoort your claims about the models.

In fact, your claim about the models implies that you are not actually clear on what a model is or does. I suggest reading Religion and Science by Ian Barbour, for a theologian’s explanation of scientific concepts.

@Pants-of-dog

I am not doing this again.

You continuously ignore actual evidence, refuse to support your claims with evidence, and make outlandish claims about conspiracies.

Until you support your claims and criticisms with actual evidence, there is no point in “debating” this with you.

I like it when you mimic me.

You are far more polite and on point.

Now, if I disregarded something, as you claim, please tell me.

Please note that I have specifically mentioned which claims you have not supported.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No. For example, you have still not provided any evidence at all to supoort your claims about the models.

In fact, your claim about the models implies that you are not actually clear on what a model is or does. I suggest reading Religion and Science by Ian Barbour, for a theologian’s explanation of scientific concepts.



I like it when you mimic me.

You are far more polite and on point.

Now, if I disregarded something, as you claim, please tell me.

Please note that I have specifically mentioned which claims you have not supported.

I am not doing this again.

You continuously ignore actual evidence, refuse to support your claims with evidence, and make outlandish claims about conspiracies.

Until you support your claims and criticisms with actual evidence, there is no point in “debating” this with you.

[Pants-of-dog]

And yet here you are.

So we know now that models do not “mention or cite” previous climates or eras because models are not lists of previous eras or written reports or whatever you incorrectly think models are.

Instead, models are incomplete copies of systems or phenomena used in labs to analyse these systems or phenomena.

The models can be checked against real world phenomena, and in the case of climate models, this means hindcasting, where models are tuned or calibrated so that they correctly predict past climates.

Now, it could be argued that the models are wrong because they did not correctly predict previous hothouse eras.

But you did not claim that.

This is why I think you do not know what models are.

[Victoribus Spolia]

And yet here you are.

So we know now that models do not “mention or cite” previous climates or eras because models are not lists of previous eras or written reports or whatever you incorrectly think models are.

Instead, models are incomplete copies of systems or phenomena used in labs to analyse these systems or phenomena.

The models can be checked against real world phenomena, and in the case of climate models, this means hindcasting, where models are tuned or calibrated so that they correctly predict past climates.

Now, it could be argued that the models are wrong because they did not correctly predict previous hothouse eras.

But you did not claim that.

This is why I think you do not know what models are.

I am not doing this again.

You continuously ignore actual evidence, refuse to support your claims with evidence, and make outlandish claims about conspiracies.

Until you support your claims and criticisms with actual evidence, there is no point in “debating” this with you.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.climatecommunication.org/qu ... te-models/

Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the various aspects of the climate system including the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice, and the Sun. The complex task of simulating Earth’s climate is carried out by computer programs designed to detect long-term climate trends based on large-scale forces. Unlike weather prediction models, climate models are not intended to predict individual storms systems.

Climate models are tested against what we know happened in the past and they do accurately map past climate changes. Climate models have also been proven to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo provided an opportunity for such a test. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption, a cooling influence that lasted a couple of years.

Models have also been applied to the question of how the climate system will react to additional greenhouse gases. These models have correctly predicted effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling. Far from overestimating future climate change, climate models are more likely to be conservative in their predictions. For example, model predictions of how fast Arctic sea ice would decline and how fast sea level would rise have proven to be considerably less than the changes actually observed.

And....

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... prediction

Thirty years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.

Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.

The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.

So, the argument that models are generally wrong is apparently incorrect.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Already Refuted.

Please see my previous post. Thank you.

[Pants-of-dog]

So, let us look again at the unsupported claims so far by the global warming denialists:

1a. The models do not take the previous hothouse eras into account, and...
1b. ...this makes the models wrong or useless.

We already discussed how this argument is actually a misunderstanding of what models are.

2. The models and the graph from the LIA Wikipedia page are all the result of a worldwide conspiracy of climatologists and other scientists, who are cooking the books for some vague but nefarious purpose.

I will address this after the next post by @Victoribus Spolia that does not support or refute anything.

3. The models make wrong predictions.

We have also seen that the models are making correct predictions.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Already Refuted.

Please see my previous post. Thank you.

[Pants-of-dog]

That’s cool. I have already disproven every single claim you have made in this thread.

Now, the “evidence” that you and @Truth To Power “presented” for the conspiracy theory was a vague mention of Climategate.

Now, there were 8 separate inquiries or panels that investigated the supoosed scandal.

All eight found that there was no evidence of a conspiracy or attempt to doctor data.

So now we have disproved all the claims.