When one of the Greenpeace founders and a Nobel physics prize winner speak out about the climate scam you know it's all unravelling:

https://tacticalinvestor.com/global-warming-hoax-destroyed-by-nobel-laureate/

Linus wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 8:46pm:


Linus : Do you think you could stop turning up in topics with your dead links/links to Left wing whackjob fact check sites? I’m getting tired of pwning your red raw arse every time you do this.

Linus wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 9:06pm:


1. Telling the brutal truth isn’t a lie (unless you’re an unhinged psychopath). 

2. You only ever say that to me under your Meister id.

3. My husband is (unfortunately) both a lefty and an agnostic.

Linus wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 8:46pm:


Debunked by who? Those in the grip of the money making machine that is the climate cult? 

Linus' second link is about the GBR being 93% "Bleached, Suffering or practically Dead". Of course Terry Hughes said it was dead. Great Lazarus comeback.

And according to the final report it was nowhere near 93%. Some PARTS were 80% affected. Some PARTS were 20% affected and other PARTS not affected at all.

There goes the credibility of a ...Journalism Professor.

His first link is "Access Denied". Ho hum. But I did find it. Poor Linus obviously thinks the climate models aren't wrong, despite Hausfather, Peters and Schmidt saying so.

But according to think progress Clouds are a positive feedback.

"Our initial reading of their article had us independently asking, how we could have missed such explicit evidence of the cloud feedback as shown in LC09? "

The models don't do clouds well at all.

I think Linus is a sock. Gweggy most probably.

Lee says:

Quote:

---

Let's take a look at Hausfather, Peters and Schmidt:

"Climate models are often attacked, but most of the time they're remarkably good


The computer models used to simulate what heat-trapping gases will do to global temperatures have been pretty spot-on in their predictions, a new study found.

After years of hearing critics blast the models' accuracy, climate scientist Zeke Hausfather decided to see just how good they have been. He tracked down 17 models used between 1970 and 2007 and found that the majority of them predicted results that were "indistinguishable from what actually occurred."

"By and large our models have gotten it right, plus or minus a little bit," said Hausfather, a UC Berkeley scientist who is climate and energy director at the Breakthrough Institute. "If they get it wrong, it's slightly on the warm side, but I wouldn't read too much into that."

Ten of the 17 were close to the temperatures that actually happened, said Hausfather, lead author of a study in Wednesday's journal Geophysical Research Letters.


But scientists actually got the physics right even more than that, Hausfather said.


Climate models are based on two main assumptions. One is the physics of the atmosphere and how it reacts to heat-trapping gases. The other is the amount of greenhouse gases put into the air.

A few times, scientists were wrong in their predictions about the growth of carbon pollution, saying there would be more of the gases than there actually were, Hausfather said. If they got the amount of heat-trapping gases wrong, they then got the temperatures wrong.

So Hausfather and colleagues, including NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, looked at how well the models did on just the pure science, taking out the emissions factor. On that count, 14 of the 17 computer models accurately predicted the future.

The scientists also gave each computer simulation a "skill score" that essentially gave a percentage grade to each one. The average grade was a 69%.

One of the earliest computer models, made in 1970, got a 91%. What's so impressive about that is that at the time, climate change wasn't noticeable in the yearly temperature records like it is now, Hausfather said.


Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh, who wasn't part of the study, called the work creative and the results striking.

"Even without knowing what the current level of greenhouse gas concentrations would be, the climate models predicted the evolution of global temperature quite well," Diffenbaugh said.


It's crucial that these models are accurate because "we have one planet Earth, so we can't conduct controlled experiments on the actual climate system," he added.

University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles, who wasn't part of the study either, said climate change "deniers do a lot of weird things to misrepresent models. None of those analyses have been valid and they should be ignored. We should no longer be debating the basic science of climate change." "

https://phys.org/news/2019-12-climate-theyre-remarkably-good.html


I wouldn't be laughing and dismissing climate models, if I were you, Lee. And Hausfather, Peters and Schmidt would agree. 

You misrepresented them, Lee. 

lee wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 10:22pm:


Now you know why I enjoy making fun of that ID.

Although .... he sometimes reminds me of someone else.

(I wish Freediver allowed each person here to have 1 ID).

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 9:40am:


Nope! Linus is 10000% a Mong (shared btwn Bwian and Groggy etc).

Their ridiculous Mong personas are now way too easy to spot: For starters ALL Manure Mound Mongs lie AND deflect in the face of brutal truth. Anyway ... I’m happy to discuss Climate Change with you Lee. And with Freediver.