Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I asked you at least 4 times to explain how "over 95% of climate models are wrong". Dr. Spencer's article doesn't show it and the data doesn't demonstrate it. Since you haven't answered the question in any meaningful way, you must not know either. Maybe - possibly - he is calling that model represented by the dotted green line (average) "wrong" because it ...[text shortened]... ing is sensitive to random climate fluctuations, which can compound over time. This makes sense.

"but they are well within a reasonable margin of error"

You have not defined what a "reasonable margin of error" is. It seems to me that anything that challenges your alarmism will be automatically considered close enough no matter how far off it is. I can see that you will say anything to avoid admitting you are wrong. That is why you repeatedly avoid answering that question. You simply don't want to be caught in a big lie that will embarrass you.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You have not defined what a "reasonable margin of error" is. It seems to me that anything that challenges your alarmism will be automatically considered close enough no matter how far off it is. I can see that you will say anything to avoid admitting you are wrong. That is why you repeatedly avoid answering that question. You simply don't want to be caught in a big lie that will embarrass you.

What's the question? What is a reasonable margin of error? It was defined by the climate scientists, not me. The daily caller article you posted defined it very clearly. Are you saying that, despite the accuracy of climate models for decades, the 2-3 years where the models are outside the margin of error means they are wrong?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
What's the question? What is a reasonable margin of error? It was defined by the climate scientists, not me. The daily caller article you posted defined it very clearly. Are you saying that, despite the accuracy of climate models for decades, the 2-3 years where the models are outside the margin of error means they are wrong?

"The daily caller article you posted defined it very clearly"

I didn't see it. Copy and paste the excerpt for me.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
"The daily caller article you posted defined it very clearly"

I didn't see it. Copy and paste the excerpt for me.

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/catosurfacetemps-e1451330094752.png

Originally posted by @wildgrass
http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/catosurfacetemps-e1451330094752.png

That says nothing and you know it.

Just admit you lied. You can't hide the truth anymore.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
That says nothing and you know it.

Just admit you lied. You can't hide the truth anymore.

You got me there. The liar accusations really expose your inability to provide a cogent argument.

I think you only like to look at the headlines of articles, rather than the content. That's why all your "sources" are political and partisan. Can you actually look at a graph of data and see what the data demonstrates? Is there even any daylight between observed and modeled at the 45 year trend length?

How do I look at that graph and conclude that CO2 is being systematically overestimated? It's spot on for much of the time course, and well within the margin of error (except for the brief pause period).

Originally posted by @wildgrass
You got me there. The liar accusations really expose your inability to provide a cogent argument.

I think you only like to look at the headlines of articles, rather than the content. That's why all your "sources" are political and partisan. Can you actually look at a graph of data and see what the data demonstrates? Is there even any daylight between o ...[text shortened]... uch of the time course, and well within the margin of error (except for the brief pause period).

You have not told me what you consider within the margin for error and the graph does not "clearly show" it as you claimed.

"your "sources" are political and partisan"

Global warming is a political and partisan divided subject. It would be nice if leftists could recognize propaganda in their own political parties but they do not. They know nothing of the science behind GW but insist the science is settled because they repeat the myth like a parrot, not because they actually know anything about it. The false perception of settled science is why leftists insist they have to be right even though they cannot prove it.

"How do I look at that graph and conclude that CO2 is being systematically overestimated?"

I didn't say CO2 is being overestimated. I said the warming co2 causes is being overestimated. The graph shows that overestimation in warming.

Admit you are wrong.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Global warming is a political and partisan divided subject. It would be nice if leftists could recognize propaganda in their own political parties but they do not. They know nothing of the science behind GW but insist the science is settled because they repeat the myth like a parrot, not because they actually know anything about it. The false perception ...[text shortened]... f settled science is why leftists insist they have to be right even though they cannot prove it.

The reason I said it is because you post links to Breitbart and the Daily Caller, two of the most conservative websites on the whole internet. You also post quotes from the journalist/writer of the article, rather than the scientific literature or data or even a quote from the scientist him/herself. You don't seem to understand what the data you post means, settling instead for the interpretation from the far-right blogger.

Conclusions I have drawn come from the data and actual scientific sources. Where is the propaganda in there? Point to it. It's the data itself, that apparently you think is biased and wrong. Rather than a partisan divided subject, you are waging war on evidence. You're not going to win that one.

Not trying to get too political, but as a society we can do better. Imagine if, instead of listening to your conservative websites saying we should go to war in Iraq, we decided to listen the scientists and spend that $1 Trillion to subsidize a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, improve the efficiency of energy use and our energy grid, alter land use policies to be more sustainable etc. we'd have a more stream-lined economy and a more stable middle East.

I agree with you on one point: We have no clear idea of what carbon emissions reductions will specifically accomplish. But how detailed were our plans when we invaded a foreign country? It's really complicated. But current science says it'll help. 65% of polled scientists think that our current contribution to warming is >50% of total warming. For the most part, the models fit within a reasonable margin of error, represented very clearly in the graph by the dotted lines. They are good enough to make predictions about what might happen to our climate if we changed this or that input. If you're disagreeing with all that, and still calling me a liar out of desperation, then I don't know what else to say. The evidence has already been presented.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
The reason I said it is because you post links to Breitbart and the Daily Caller, two of the most conservative websites on the whole internet. You also post quotes from the journalist/writer of the article, rather than the scientific literature or data or even a quote from the scientist him/herself. You don't seem to understand what the data you post mean ...[text shortened]... out of desperation, then I don't know what else to say. The evidence has already been presented.

Where do you expect me to find the data to prove my point, Mother Jones? They are going to be conservative links. That is just common sense.

I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN. Assuming I am because I posed a link from a Libertarian and alt right website is not evidence I supported war. Anybody who has read my posts on the debates forum can tell you that including Deepthought and Kazetnagorra.

The propaganda is from the corporate news media, not from the data. The data doesn't suggest the science is settled. You know that though. You are just deliberately trying to mislead people and avoid answering my question.

What is the margin of error you would find acceptable and not acceptable? No more links to digress into nonsense. Just tell me or admit you are wrong. You are not going to win by evasion tactics. It shows your weakness.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Where do you expect me to find the data to prove my point, Mother Jones? They are going to be conservative links. That is just common sense.

I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN. Assuming I am because I posed a link from a Libertarian and alt right website is not evidence I supported war. Anybody who has read my posts on the debates forum can tell you that including ...[text shortened]... me or admit you are wrong. You are not going to win by evasion tactics. It shows your weakness.

I didn't call you a republican, no need to put it in caps.

Find the data in the science! Obviously. Breitbart and Mother Jones don't do science, they write blogs.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
What is the margin of error you would find acceptable and not acceptable?

I trust the scientists statistical calculations. Of course that requires a trust in the science itself. And you need to read the article and the data contained in the article to find the information.

Here is the quote regarding the statistical calculation in the Cato Institute study you posted. This margin of error is considered acceptable:

"...the observed trends [are] closer to the multi-model mean.... in some cases continue to fall beneath, the lower bound containing 95 percent of all model runs (i.e., the 2.5th percentile distribution of model projections). (Because the 100+ model results are binned very close to a normal frequency distribution), the 2.5th percentile is analogous to the .05 confidence limits for a two-tailed (above or below the model average) distribution."

It'd be nice if you read the things you post before you post them. Then, when I read and respond to them I can assume we're on the same page. If you don't read what you're posting though, how am I supposed to respond?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
The reason I said it is because you post links to Breitbart and the Daily Caller, two of the most conservative websites on the whole internet. You also post quotes from the journalist/writer of the article, rather than the scientific literature or data or even a quote from the scientist him/herself. You don't seem to understand what the data you post mean ...[text shortened]... out of desperation, then I don't know what else to say. The evidence has already been presented.

"we'd have a more stream-lined economy and a more stable middle East."

Your lack of understanding economics and foreign policy is amazing. You have very poor critical thinking skills. Unless you have a near term plan for fueling military machines to run on something other than fossil fuels the invasions in the middle east will continue. Iraq and Libya were invaded partly to insure oil will be bought using US dollars. Saddam and Gaddafi were a threat to the US dollar's status as the world reserve currency. They will protect the petrodollar if it means killing millions of people.

Many people think invading oil rich countries is about selling the oil. It isn't. It is about controlling it. WW2 was won by denying Japan and Germany oil. Fossil fuels are of the utmost importance to military victory. Without fossil fuels how are you going to fuel tanks and aircraft? Ethanol only goes so far. Ask the Japanese.

Denying others petroleum is a good tactic for world domination if that is your goal. It isn't about selling it, it is about not letting your enemy having any.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I trust the scientists statistical calculations. Of course that requires a trust in the science itself. And you need to read the article and the data contained in the article to find the information.

Here is the quote regarding the statistical calculation in the Cato Institute study you posted. This margin of error is considered acceptable:

"...the ...[text shortened]... re on the same page. If you don't read what you're posting though, how am I supposed to respond?

The link I posted does not contain the information you posted. I never posted a cato institute link, just a link containing a graph from the cato institute. Please post the link you got it from. Be honest for a change.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
"we'd have a more stream-lined economy and a more stable middle East."

Your lack of understanding economics and foreign policy is amazing. You have very poor critical thinking skills. Unless you have a near term plan for fueling military machines to run on something other than fossil fuels the invasions in the middle east will continue. Iraq and Liby ...[text shortened]... if that is your goal. It isn't about selling it, it is about not letting your enemy having any.

Of course that is how wars start so there better be VERY careful analysis of that control.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
The link I posted does not contain the information you posted. I never posted a cato institute link, just a link containing a graph from the cato institute. Please post the link you got it from. Be honest for a change.

Metal Brain You are being played like a fiddle. HuffPo and Breitbart don't do science. They aren't even journalists. They only blog about what they think people will click on.

Throughout this thread I have urged you to actually look at and understand the scientific data in the figures before you post it. Dr. Spencer's "study" has probably been shared thousands of times on the interspheres, but anyone who actually looked at a graph like that without statistics would want to know where and how anyone would award him a Ph.D in the first place. All measurements contain error. How many of the spacebooks posters who say "see I told you CO2 warming isn't real" actually look at the data within the science they post?

Even the scientific literature is second-hand information, in that it is an interpretation of the primary data by the researcher. By the time you've posted your Daily Caller article here, it's now a 4th hand interpretation by you of a right wing bloggers spin of the data to fit a headline that, of course, "Devastating new study shows the models are wrong and alarmists are scrambling." You knew it all along already so you click on the article, which reinforces your opinion and they get the ad revenue.

Don't you want to know the real story? Don't you want to actually follow the link to the source data that contains actual information?

Here, we have the conservative think tank Cato Institute study. They do real science, but their funding comes from fossil fuel industries etc. This is important to note because if the data went the other way then it would have been buried. It also contains spelling/grammatical errors which are highly distracting and probably why it was never published. The data is very interesting, but it doesn't support the conclusion you posted that "decades of overblown temperature predictions [suggest] the climate isn’t as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought".

The key data is in figure 3 (posted earlier). Here, they graph 109 climate model runs, preseted as a mean +/- a 95% confidence interval versus the observed temperatures along a series of "trend lengths." The large majority of these trend lengths (from 65 years to about 23 years, and ~15 to 10) show a statistically insignificant difference between the observed and modeled values. Only within a window of 20 year trend lengths do the modeled values dip below the observed. In the artlcle, they refer to this as a "slight warming bias"

There could be a number of reasons for this dip within the 20 year window. They speculate a bit at the end, but no one really understands this well enough yet. The article I posted earlier argues that random (or poorly understood) climate fluctuations can set off climate models within narrow windows. Think about the bus schedule analogy again. You may have a bus schedule that's pretty good at predicting it's arrival most of the time, but at certain times there might be unanticipated road construction that delays the bus. It does not necessarily mean the long-term predictions made by the schedule were wrong.

I'm being as honest as I can be here, and I don't appreciate being called a liar. I think I have given a fair shake to every argument you have made, but it seems you are wrong about climate models being wrong. At least in terms of statistical deviation from a reasonable margin of error, even data from a conservative think tank has to call it a slight warming bias. This is a far cry from the crazy rhetoric being spewed from online blogs.