[late]

As I have informed you..

Propaganda isn't information.

I wonder if Koch is using ChatGPT trolls now.. it would explain a lot.

[Truth To Power]

It's not too technical, but it is an accepted procedure to underweight or outright ignore bad models.

Not when you then use the bad models to justify false claims that the better models do not support.

And, yes, averaging many good models can outperform any particular one.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 5919898657

So you agree that the claim that climate models are accurate was based on cherry-picking the lowest model temperature predictions and comparing them to the cherry-picked highest-rising temperature records. Good.

[Truth To Power]

Propaganda isn't information.

Oh. The. Irony.

[late]

Oh. The. Irony.

Said the philosopher that knows better than scientists...

[wat0n]

Not when you then use the bad models to justify false claims that the better models do not support.

So you agree that the claim that climate models are accurate was based on cherry-picking the lowest model temperature predictions and comparing them to the cherry-picked highest-rising temperature records. Good.

No. The models I cited were fit decades ago, they've been tested against the data.

However, since there are many models that get decent predictions, averaging them (and only them, not models that have shown to be poor) is a good idea.

Of course, the fact these models exist, doesn't necessarily mean global warming is being caused by humans (we can't really set up an experiment to know for sure) or that it will lead to a climate change in the terms that many scientists predict (maybe temperatures rise but other effects are minor or nonexistent, we don't really know that). But it does mean one can't rule out the field is onto something, which seems to be what you're saying - that the whole field is wrong.

[Truth To Power]

No. The models I cited were fit decades ago, they've been tested against the data.

I.e., they are the cherry-picked few percent of models that predicted the lowest temperatures.

However, since there are many models that get decent predictions,

No. That is false. Your claim is false. It is a falsehood.

As the Science article I linked to showed, the great majority of the models predict significantly higher temperatures than are observed.

averaging them (and only them, not models that have shown to be poor) is a good idea.

Problem is, when the scaremongering starts, the bad models that predict higher temperatures are cited as if they were good models.

But it does mean one can't rule out the field is onto something, which seems to be what you're saying - that the whole field is wrong.

The main reason I question the whole field is its relentless dishonesty. That tells me something.

[Truth To Power]

Said the philosopher that knows better than scientists...

Actual physical events will continue to prove me right and the "scientists" wrong. Take it to the bank.

[late]

Take it to the bank.

And a comedian to boot..

[Pants-of-dog]

The climategate emails and ample other evidence have proved the "conspiracy" is real.

No. All the many investigations all agreed that there was no dishonesty.

To ignore all these investigations and to choose instead to believe your own misinterpretation (that was investigated and found to be unsupported) is an example of the problems associated with being a conspiracy theorist.

Some academic publishers have even gone so far as to adopt a policy of rejecting unreviewed scientific papers that challenge the CO2 climate narrative.

And?

They are already doing more to reduce CO2 emissions than circumstances will ever warrant.

Provide an example.

[Truth To Power]

No. All the many investigations all agreed that there was no dishonesty.

No they didn't. They only agreed to let it slide because it couldn't be proven to be academically culpable.

To ignore all these investigations and to choose instead to believe your own misinterpretation (that was investigated and found to be unsupported)

Like cops "investigating" other cops....

is an example of the problems associated with being a conspiracy theorist.

Name calling.

And?

You dismiss such blatant bias and censorship as "conspiracy theory."

Provide an example.

The EV subsidies that made Musk the richest man in the world.

[Pants-of-dog]

No they didn't. They only agreed to let it slide because it couldn't be proven to be academically culpable.

Prove it.

Quote the investigation findings that show collusion and deceit.

The EV subsidies that made Musk the richest man in the world.

Tesla refuses to divulge environmental impact assessment information.

There is ho way for you to support this argument. It is, by necessity, an argument from ignorance.

[Truth To Power]

Prove it.

Quote the investigation findings that show collusion and deceit.

You are hilarious. What do you think they are going to say? "Although there is ample evidence of guilt, we will decline to make that ruling"?

Tesla refuses to divulge environmental impact assessment information.

So what? That is completely irrelevant to the subsidies they get, and you know it.

There is ho way for you to support this argument. It is, by necessity, an argument from ignorance.

I just did support it, and as for ignorance... as they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

[late]

Prove it.

Not only can he not prove it, the science has been watching it since the 1970s...

That's nearly half a century without a serious challenge...

He's either part of Koch's troll army, or he's utterly fruit loops. Or both.

A recent conversation convinced me he's fruit loops.

[Pants-of-dog]

:lol: You are hilarious. What do you think they are going to say? "Although there is ample evidence of guilt, we will decline to make that ruling"?

I think they are going to say something that contradicts the claim of collusion and deceit and so you refuse to quote it.

[
So what? That is completely irrelevant to the subsidies they get, and you know it.

You forgot what your argument is.

My argument is that no government or corporation is doing; anything significant about climate change. Your argument is that Tesla is doing something significant.

Since Tesla provides no information on the environmental impact of its vehicles, it is impossible to argue that these vehicles are making significant changes in terms of our use of fossil fuels.

[late]

Since Tesla provides no information on the environmental impact of its vehicles, it is impossible to argue that these vehicles are making significant changes in terms of our use of fossil fuels.

Tesla doesn't provide that information because it ain't pretty.

[Truth To Power]

I think they are going to say something that contradicts the claim of collusion and deceit and so you refuse to quote it.

Why would I quote obvious lies?

You forgot what your argument is.

No, you did.

My argument is that no government or corporation is doing; anything significant about climate change.

No it isn't, that's my argument, because CO2 is not a significant factor in climate change.

Your argument is that Tesla is doing something significant.

No it isn't. My argument is that governments are doing a lot of things that significantly damage the economy in the name of fighting climate change, such as subsidizing Tesla, but are not actually having any measurable effect on the climate.

Since Tesla provides no information on the environmental impact of its vehicles, it is impossible to argue that these vehicles are making significant changes in terms of our use of fossil fuels.

Which might be why I never made any such argument. You simply made it up and falsely attributed it to me, which is why you do not quote me making it.

It's always the same.

[wat0n]

I.e., they are the cherry-picked few percent of models that predicted the lowest temperatures.

Ugh, it is precisely by discarding bad models that science and forecasting both improve.

What matters, for the purposes of this discussion, is that the model you're using hasn't seen the data you want to predict. That is clearly not the case for models fit in the 1980s.

No. That is false. Your claim is false. It is a falsehood.

As the Science article I linked to showed, the great majority of the models predict significantly higher temperatures than are observed.

Problem is, when the scaremongering starts, the bad models that predict higher temperatures are cited as if they were good models.

The main reason I question the whole field is its relentless dishonesty. That tells me something.

If there was so much dishonesty, why are researchers in the field advising to avoid using badly made models? Why are they ringing the bell about the issue of bad models and the need to discard or at least underweight them before averaging?

[Pants-of-dog]

Why would I quote obvious lies?

So, you agree with my point that, as a conspiracy theorist, you dismiss evidence that contradicts your claim out of hand.

And you explain why you agree with me by making the additional claim that the evidence you are openly ignoring is lies.

No, you did.

No it isn't, that's my argument, because CO2 is not a significant factor in climate change.

No it isn't. My argument is that governments are doing a lot of things that significantly damage the economy in the name of fighting climate change, such as subsidizing Tesla, but are not actually having any measurable effect on the climate.

Since you agree that governments and corporations are not actually doing anything about the climate, we can discuss this claim that subsidies to Tesla are harmful to the economy.

Now, Canada has a federal subsidy program for electric cars, and Tesla has received about 60 million dollars of it.

Please show that the loss of $60 000 000 was significantly harmful to the Canadian economy.

Which might be why I never made any such argument. You simply made it up and falsely attributed it to me, which is why you do not quote me making it.

It's always the same.

Yes, there was some confusion.

It seemed like you were disagreeing with me when you said “They are already doing more to reduce CO2 emissions than circumstances will ever warrant” when you actually were agreeing with me that they were not reducing CO2 emissions at all and you were referring to the economic impact instead.

[Truth To Power]

So, you agree with my point that, as a conspiracy theorist, you dismiss evidence that contradicts your claim out of hand.

No, you made that up. It is a fabrication on your part.

And you explain why you agree with me by making the additional claim that the evidence you are openly ignoring is lies.

No, you also made that up. It is a bald fabrication on your part. Declining to quote obvious lies is quite different from ignoring evidence.

Since you agree that governments and corporations are not actually doing anything about the climate, we can discuss this claim that subsidies to Tesla are harmful to the economy.

Now, Canada has a federal subsidy program for electric cars, and Tesla has received about 60 million dollars of it.

Please show that the loss of $60 000 000 was significantly harmful to the Canadian economy.

Please stop makin' $#!+ up and falsely attributing it to me. I did not claim that the effect of wasting $60M would be significantly harmful in a multitrillion-dollar economy. That was just another fabrication on your part. What I said was that the sum of all the policies putatively intended to reduce CO2 emissions was harmful to the economy.

Yes, there was some confusion.

No. There were, and will continue to be, many deliberate attempts on your part to deceive readers as to what I plainly wrote.

It seemed like you were disagreeing with me when you said “They are already doing more to reduce CO2 emissions than circumstances will ever warrant” when you actually were agreeing with me that they were not reducing CO2 emissions at all and you were referring to the economic impact instead.

No, that is just another outright fabrication on your part that you made up and falsely attributed to me. It's always the same, because that is your only form of "argument." What I said was that their reduction of CO2 emissions was not having, and would never have, any measurable beneficial effect on the climate.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you made that up. It is a fabrication on your part.

No, you also made that up. It is a bald fabrication on your part. Declining to quote obvious lies is quite different from ignoring evidence.

Your inability to understand that you agreed with me and provided an explanation as to why you agree with me does not change the fact that you did so.

Please stop makin' $#!+ up and falsely attributing it to me. I did not claim that the effect of wasting $60M would be significantly harmful in a multitrillion-dollar economy. That was just another fabrication on your part. What I said was that the sum of all the policies putatively intended to reduce CO2 emissions was harmful to the economy.

No.

You were referring specifically to subsidies for Tesla.

If you want to now abandon that argument and move the goalposts, we can do that.

No. There were, and will continue to be, many deliberate attempts on your part to deceive readers as to what I plainly wrote.

No, that is just another outright fabrication on your part that you made up and falsely attributed to me. It's always the same, because that is your only form of "argument." What I said was that their reduction of CO2 emissions was not having, and would never have, any measurable beneficial effect on the climate.

No.

You write poorly and cannot seem to keep track of your claims.