Yeah. It's a story Denny. It's not the original research. Just because someone writes about science and uses a word imprecisely, that doesn't invalidate the science. If it did, all of science would have long since been invalidated by the posts on this forum. barfo
Yeah! Personal attack! Personal attack! Denny must be banned! Actually, he's right. I am lazy. That reminds me of a time (way back before the internet) when a typesetter (yeah, that far back) at the school paper modified a quote about the QB from the football coach. The coach was quoted as saying something like 'He needs to work on his passing game'. The typesetter added "Actually, he's the laziest son of a bitch I've ever known". barfo
So I bet they figure the trade wind is "stronger" by measuring only on the windiest days. The scientists do plenty to invalidate their "science." Like looking for excuses why their models produce horribly inaccurate results.
You bet? You mean, you are just going to leap to that conclusion without actually studying the science? Somebody here besides me is lazy... That's pretty much the scientific method you are criticizing there. What's the alternative you'd prefer? Give up if the first hypothesis didn't work perfectly? No, that's probably not what you'd prefer. Your method would be to insist that your original idea was completely correct in every way no matter what evidence suggests otherwise. Seems to me you could be trumpeting this work because they are pointing out a flaw in climate models, which is something you want to do. But instead of hailing them, you are assailing them. It's as if you don't actually want climate science to improve, you just want to complain about how bad it is. barfo
Plunked? Yesterday you were saying punked. You wouldn't currently be misusing words, would you? barfo
Stupid autocorrect. You were punked. Not by me, but by those hawking the broken models and coming up with excuse after excuse why they fail. They're up to 8 excuses. You think they'll adjust their models for those 8 and all will be well? I know there are billions of excuses and fixes to the models that are sure to come and none of them, or combined, will make the models work. Literally billions, and that's an understatement. A geometric equation will generate a graph as "accurate" as the models. So does a graph of the US debt over time.
Well, I expect neither of us is going to live long enough to settle this debate (if you want to call it that) on the climate. But I surely do admire your certainty that you are correct about things you don't know about. barfo
I am certain that computer models are bullshit because I actually do know more than enough about them. Wrong again.
Why do you guys believe this shit? I mean warming is turbocharging the Pacific trade winds??? Why believe that rather than take a look for yourself? They show you a picture of storm then insinuate stronger trade winds??? But then you can get the actual winds blowing there and it's nothing like they show on a regular basis. The historical data for every 5 mile quadrant of any ocean is there (NOAA) for all to see that care. You can compare that with what you can see today and everyday here forward and see if you are being enriched with bullshit. What's up with this blind belief in bogus agenda fertilizer put out but some phd???
It's called confirmation bias, with a dash of either willful ignorance and/or cognitive dissonance included. The crazy part is that MarAzul and Denny Crane aren't actual trying to "prove" anything, other than in this case, the hypothesis isn't proven by the research, let alone the actual data. In science, that used to be called skepticism, and was accepted and even encouraged. Now, it's called being a Denier or a Flat-Earther. It would be comical if governments and corporations weren't trying to scare citizens into accepting a higher cost of living, while gov't and corporations become further enriched.
How would they know? As far as I can tell no one in this thread, including me, has even so much as glanced at the actual research referenced 2nd hand in the OP. It's called that because they haven't actually looked at the research, they are just saying, well, I have faith it's wrong. That's less skepticism and more religion. Meanwhile I haven't seen anyone on the other side say they know, believe, assume, or even suspect this particular research is correct. barfo
