Australian Politics Forum - Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 156094 Gender:	Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud Reply #75 - May 27^th, 2014 at 12:27pm rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:21pm: Two hours, two months, are both ridiculously insignificant periods of time when discussing this subject. Two hundred years isn't. Yes, it is. It's just as ridiculous as two days or two weeks. Hopefully you'll realise this one day.
Back to top	GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #76 - May 27^th, 2014 at 12:32pm

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

Two hours, two months, are both ridiculously insignificant periods of time when discussing this subject.

Two hundred years isn't.

Yes, it is. It's just as ridiculous as two days or two weeks.

Hopefully you'll realise this one day.

Why is two hundred years a ridiculously insignificant period of time when discussing this subject Greggery?

Can you explain?

What impact will Milankovitch Cycles have on the built human environment over coming decades that would require their consideration in the future planning of infrastructure?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156094
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #77 - May 27^th, 2014 at 12:48pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

Two hours, two months, are both ridiculously insignificant periods of time when discussing this subject.

Two hundred years isn't.

Yes, it is. It's just as ridiculous as two days or two weeks.

Hopefully you'll realise this one day.

Why is two hundred years a ridiculously insignificant period of time when discussing this subject Greggery?

Can you explain?

4.5 billion divided by 200 =

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #78 - May 27^th, 2014 at 1:45pm

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

Two hours, two months, are both ridiculously insignificant periods of time when discussing this subject.

Two hundred years isn't.

Yes, it is. It's just as ridiculous as two days or two weeks.

Hopefully you'll realise this one day.

Why is two hundred years a ridiculously insignificant period of time when discussing this subject Greggery?

Can you explain?

4.5 billion divided by 200 =

What isn't relevant is what the temperature on earth was 100 million years ago. It plays no part in recent temperatures, conditions or if human activity is causing warming.

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #79 - May 27^th, 2014 at 1:46pm

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

I have said, on numerous occasions, that AGW is a pretty good theory.

Really, because most of your posts seem to suggest you think AGW is some sort of religious cult.

...
which is about a first for a scientific theory. Usually its the religious side who like things the same as they've always been (ie flat earth)

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156094
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #80 - May 27^th, 2014 at 1:49pm

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 1:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

Two hours, two months, are both ridiculously insignificant periods of time when discussing this subject.

Two hundred years isn't.

Yes, it is. It's just as ridiculous as two days or two weeks.

Hopefully you'll realise this one day.

Why is two hundred years a ridiculously insignificant period of time when discussing this subject Greggery?

Can you explain?

4.5 billion divided by 200 =

What isn't relevant is what the temperature on earth was 100 million years ago.

Of course not.

AGW disciples are the masters of cherry picking.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156094
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #81 - May 27^th, 2014 at 1:53pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 1:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

I have said, on numerous occasions, that AGW is a pretty good theory.

Really, because most of your posts seem to suggest you think AGW is some sort of religious cult.

Yes, really. Check back through this thread, and many others, if you don't believe me.

The people who believe that AGW is a "fact", are most certainly reminiscent of cult members.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #82 - May 27^th, 2014 at 3:00pm

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 1:53pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 1:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

I have said, on numerous occasions, that AGW is a pretty good theory.

Really, because most of your posts seem to suggest you think AGW is some sort of religious cult.

Yes, really. Check back through this thread, and many others, if you don't believe me.

The people who believe that AGW is a "fact", are most certainly reminiscent of cult members.

So youve conceeded that all science is theory, and laypersons tend to attribute the word "fact" to a theory that little contrary evidence.

On that basis, AGW is fact, any less you are a pedant who only argues semantics (which I know you are! )

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #83 - May 27^th, 2014 at 3:03pm

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 1:49pm:

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 1:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

Two hours, two months, are both ridiculously insignificant periods of time when discussing this subject.

Two hundred years isn't.

Yes, it is. It's just as ridiculous as two days or two weeks.

Hopefully you'll realise this one day.

Why is two hundred years a ridiculously insignificant period of time when discussing this subject Greggery?

Can you explain?

4.5 billion divided by 200 =

What isn't relevant is what the temperature on earth was 100 million years ago.

Of course not.

AGW disciples are the masters of cherry picking.

That is wrong. Scientists gather all data that is available, and use that data to match to theoretical models. If a model cherry picks data it is quickly exposed through peer review.

You seem to have a problem with the data not being linear in granularity. You seem to be alone there.

Deniers have had a long history of cherry picking data within the scientific data to push agenda's. muso posts a nice graph every now and then.

So dont go around painting scientists with this cherry picking nonsense.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156094
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #84 - May 27^th, 2014 at 3:06pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:00pm:

AGW is fact.

No, it most certainly is not. Moreover, it has nothing to do with semantics (nice try though).

I suggest you do some research on science, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Either that or, keep drinking the Kool Aid.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156094
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #85 - May 27^th, 2014 at 3:08pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 1:49pm:

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 1:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

Two hours, two months, are both ridiculously insignificant periods of time when discussing this subject.

Two hundred years isn't.

Yes, it is. It's just as ridiculous as two days or two weeks.

Hopefully you'll realise this one day.

Why is two hundred years a ridiculously insignificant period of time when discussing this subject Greggery?

Can you explain?

4.5 billion divided by 200 =

What isn't relevant is what the temperature on earth was 100 million years ago.

Of course not.

AGW disciples are the masters of cherry picking.

That is wrong. Scientists gather all data that is available ...

Well spotted. You're starting to learn (albeit, very slowly).

And how much data do we have, exactly? Hmmm? How many years do records go back?

Think very carefully before you answer.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21603
Gender: male

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #86 - May 27^th, 2014 at 3:11pm

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 11:43am:

The models offer a range of predictions, and so far observations have large fall within that range. Models are of course subject to fine tuning as more power / knowledge becomes available.

The models are and have been for some time diverging from reality. Compare the balloon and satellite data to the models. Averaging all the models just means that they average the readings that are too hot. It doesn't and can't give you anywhere near an accurate temperature. Why do you think that the IPCC used an 'expert panel' rather than the models in AR5?

Models can be fine tuned- agreed. After that fine tuning why don't they redo the hindcasting and see if that still fits the curve. Common sense tells you that it is unlikely to do so. Twenty odd years of models and they still aren't anywhere near correct.

If they want to use models it is time to throw away the ones they are using because they don't work, and start on a new series that may work.

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #87 - May 27^th, 2014 at 3:37pm

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:08pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 1:49pm:

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 1:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

Two hours, two months, are both ridiculously insignificant periods of time when discussing this subject.

Two hundred years isn't.

Yes, it is. It's just as ridiculous as two days or two weeks.

Hopefully you'll realise this one day.

Why is two hundred years a ridiculously insignificant period of time when discussing this subject Greggery?

Can you explain?

4.5 billion divided by 200 =

What isn't relevant is what the temperature on earth was 100 million years ago.

Of course not.

AGW disciples are the masters of cherry picking.

That is wrong. Scientists gather all data that is available ...

Well spotted. You're starting to learn (albeit, very slowly).

And how much data do we have, exactly? Hmmm? How many years do records go back?

Think very carefully before you answer.

Enough data to support their predictions.

Scientists arent predicting the world will become a molten volcano infested rock as it was 100 million years ago. They arent prediciting it will become a snowball as it was some x millions of years ago.

They are saying a shift of a few degrees will impact our ability to feed 6 billion people, and a few degrees will raise sea levels to impact coastal infrastructure.

These are things that will severly impact us humans. The rest of the planet may not notice so much.

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud
Reply #88 - May 27^th, 2014 at 3:38pm

lee wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:11pm:

Kytro wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 11:43am:

The models offer a range of predictions, and so far observations have large fall within that range. Models are of course subject to fine tuning as more power / knowledge becomes available.

The models are and have been for some time diverging from reality. Compare the balloon and satellite data to the models. Averaging all the models just means that they average the readings that are too hot. It doesn't and can't give you anywhere near an accurate temperature. Why do you think that the IPCC used an 'expert panel' rather than the models in AR5?

Models can be fine tuned- agreed. After that fine tuning why don't they redo the hindcasting and see if that still fits the curve. Common sense tells you that it is unlikely to do so. Twenty odd years of models and they still aren't anywhere near correct.

If they want to use models it is time to throw away the ones they are using because they don't work, and start on a new series that may work.

according to Andrew Bolt, you are spot on.

However, according to reality, the models are just fine.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 156094 Gender:	Re: Pseudo climate science gatekeeping reveals fraud Reply #89 - May 27^th, 2014 at 3:46pm Doctor Jolly wrote on May 27^th, 2014 at 3:38pm: However, according to reality, the models are just fine. According to reality, the models are just that: models. 'Reality' - 'Models' 'Chalk' - 'Cheese'
Back to top	GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles IP Logged