USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

You've been refuting the majority of atmospheric/climate scientists who believe there is a correlation between CO2 and global warming. Changed your mind? Or, at the very least, are you willing to admit more data is needed?

 

Pardon my vulgarity, but the bolded statement is bullshit. I presented other people's evidence, as did Denny Crane, that suggest that there may not be a correlation between man's emissions of CO2 and rising temperatures.

You continue to incorrectly present my position in post after post. Why is that? As for more data being needed, that is the point I have been making. Nice to see you've finally conceded (and even joined) my position.

 

Lol. I beat you to the punch awhile ago on this, PapaG.

 

Um, my entire purpose in this thread has been to introduce the fact that there is data that exists that may not make anthropogenic global warming a reality.

You've been too busy insulting me to actually read the posts, I guess.

 

Lol. Whatever you say. I'll just take it as a victory that you no longer believe without question that there is no correlation between CO2 and global warming. Huzzah.

 

When did I say this? A "victory"? Sheesh. Oh well, at least you didn't insult me in the above post. I'll take that as a "victory".

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion that it's all garbage, but you are essentially a duffer. You don't know anything about the science except what you Googled. Learning by Google is a nice way to get a general, superficial overview but it hardly makes you a credible voice of dissent about a scientific field. You assert that climate science is garbage but back it up with no real knowledge. That's not compelling, but it also cannot be refuted. I agree that you think climate science is garbage.

Your model of baseball is essentially equivalent to your understanding of climate science. There is a field of baseball statistical analysis called "sabermetrics" which does much more rigorous modeling, taking into account the variable values of getting on base versus hitting for power, the level of competition faced, etc. Your "model" of baseball hitting is to sabermetrics what your criticisms of climate science are to actual climate science...superficial, using only a layman's ideas, lacking the sophisticated tools of the field.

As to what you had hoped to show with your baseball model, yes, bad models are bad. But you are merely asserting climate models are bad...you don't actually have the expertise to know and demostrate that they are bad.

 

Performance for a given player in a given season is predicted based on sabermetric modeling. How often does this modeling yield an exact result?

Let's take a look at the sabermetric 2009 projections for the Red Sox.

http://www.baseballprojection.com/BOS2009.htm

Compare these results to what the end of the season, or "observation", yields.

Again, yet another poster insulting a skeptic by saying they only know about science from "Googling" it. You pull out the sabermetric card, yet looking at predictions for one team, and clearly very few players will end even close to what is predicted for them, and certainly not at a p-value of less than or equal to 5 across the data set. Weak.

 

The burden of proof is on the modeler to present their model as accurate. It's certainly not on the person questioning the validity of a model that predicts the future.

 

Not really. The point is, you made a purposely bad model to show that bad models are bad. Well done!

Absolutely. No one is claiming you can get models exactly right. In fact, in a post just a short while ago, I said precisely that:

The "molecular make-up of water" isn't a model. It's a stand-alone empirical fact. All models have some level of uncertainty or conflicting data, because all scientific models are inherently limited by human knowledge, which is not all-encompassing or even close.

The fact there are questions and some conflicting data in the man-made global warming model doesn't mean that it's not solid science. There is always the possibility that it is wrong, and any credible scientist would agree to that...that possibility exists with every single scientific model. What the vast majority of informed scientists say is that the bulk of evidence suggests that man-made effects are amplifying the natural temperature cycle. How much and what the ultimate effects will be aren't conclusively known and the scientific community (Al Gore isn't part of it) doesn't claim that it is known.

Yes, I said exactly that as well in an earlier post. We are both duffers. You know who aren't? Climate scientists, and they overwhelmingly believe that man is affecting global temperatures.

I'm saying that, since you don't know much about the field, you aren't a credible skeptic. I think it's great that some actual climate scientists are skeptics and add their voices to the field. With that, the consensus in the field is what it is. It's not a Truth (science has never been about Truth, it's about the best models our knowledge allows for), it's simply the best information we have from the people who know the issue the best.

You're a duffer at climate science.

 

Who cares? Sabermetrics isn't "science" and even scientific models (all of them) have some level of uncertainty, as I pointed out to you in a post earlier this afternoon. I was simply pointing out that there are better and worse models...creating a purposely silly model to show that bad models are useless isn't very insightful.

It's not an insult, it's a fact. You have no education in climate science, all you know is what you Google. As I said earlier, it's fine for a superficial overview, but it hardly takes the place of an actual education and work in the field.

 

Yes, the burden of proof is on the modeler and the models have been demonstrated to be the best information we have on the subject to the satisfaction of the vast majority in the field.

 

So, a model that has to literally encompass the entire globe, and all of its variables, is accurate?

Which is why I presented data compiled by people who do have an education in climate science.

We have posters in this thread smearing people who actually work in the field. What is your point, other than to insult one group of posters, yet not insult another group of posters?

Ad hominem attacks are a sure sign of being flustered. I don't need an education in climate science to see that some data doesn't line up with what is being presented to the general public as a fact, do I?

 

So, "models" drive climate "science", and observational data is ridiculed. What a joke. Tell me how this isn't politicized.

 

What part of your education makes you an authority to speak for what science is about?

 

I had to pull this out to digest it again. Where did you learn this information? It makes no sense.

 

In summary, the more variables, the less exact the model. Taking the entire globe as a model? Lots of variables, which is why climate models are continuously adjusted.