How to misinterpret climate change research

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

That argument now appears to be false according to Duke University research

So is that science settled? The science that Duke University used.

Why is that more settled than the science indicating something different? Why is that science not yet settled?

Your "belief" in science seems to be based on whether you agree with the executive summary.

Settled?, I didn't say that. Not sure where you came up with that. As for the rest of your rants, fine. I just posted more information to consider. I don't think anything is settled. Do you?

and I did not make the claim that the claim the climate was changing faster now than any time in history. The alarmist did

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,175]

The title of the article you cite:

Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models

Well, golly gee, that's weird, isn't it?

For things not to be as bad as the WORST case is really unusual.

If they're not as good as the best case either, that would be doubly weird.

Kind of reminds me of the mean value theorem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

The title of the article you cite:

Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models

Well, golly gee, that's weird, isn't it?

For things not to be as bad as the WORST case is really unusual.

If they're not as good as the best case either, that would be doubly weird.

Kind of reminds me of the mean value theorem.

You should really be posting this to other alarmist in your group

Cause I already know it is not as bad as these people have stated
Nor will it be

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,132]

>Sometimes it's hard to tell if you are Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3.

He changes from day to day. Sometimes he will see an article on a glacier and say "see? the climate isn't warming!" Then he will see an article on how the Sun is one of the drivers of climate change and say "see? It's all natural!"

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Sometimes it's hard to tell if you are Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3.

He changes from day to day. Sometimes he will see an article on a glacier and say "see? the climate isn't warming!" Then he will see an article on how the Sun is one of the drivers of climate change and say "see? It's all natural!"

Actually Bill
the total context of my posts are



the science is not settled

Something you do not want to consider
The rest of the crap you pull is just copyinng of the political correctness groups tactic of trying to silence the oposition via calling names

A great alarmist at work

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

the science is not settled

What would indicate that the science is settled?

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

the science is not settled

What would indicate that the science is settled?

You tell me?

It sure as hell is not at this time.

But, to humor you, observations matching predictions would be a good start.

Temp data sets agreeing with each other would be another

Something truly unique in planet history would be yet another

Creating lies though manipulated data should stop

Just to name a few......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But, to humor you, observations matching predictions would be a good start.

For which theory?

Quote

Temp data sets agreeing with each other would be another

Not sure what this means, can you expand?

Quote

Something truly unique in planet history would be yet another

Really? That would just be an observation, how would that settle science?

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

But, to humor you, observations matching predictions would be a good start.

For which theory?

***Temp data sets agreeing with each other would be another

Not sure what this means, can you expand?

Quote

Something truly unique in planet history would be yet another

Really? That would just be an observation, how would that settle science?

Soo
You think only one bit of info will settle it?

Now I am getting a better idea what we are dealing with

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You think only one bit of info will settle it?

Uhm no, I am trying to understand when you would think the science is settled. But after some soundbites you seem to be running out of "explanations".

[normiss 905]

He's googling as fast as he can man.

[kallend 2,175]

SkyDekker

Quote

the science is not settled

What would indicate that the science is settled?

It won't ever be settled to Marc's satisfaction. Recall that he works for a corporation that belches tens of millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

kallend

***

Quote

the science is not settled

What would indicate that the science is settled?

It won't ever be settled to Marc's satisfaction. Recall that he works for a corporation that belches tens of millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

As long as the company newsletters say the science is not settled it is impossible for so many people benefiting personally from all the pollution to accept any evidence that is slapping them up side their heads daily.

[billvon 3,132]

>So what are your thoughts on this, Bill?

I think it's a case of "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

The issues of second order effects - aerosols, cloud albedo changes, moisture transport (and the resulting change in IR absorption) - are still being worked on. This study narrows the uncertainty of one of the above effects a little. So when we do future models, the very top of the curve (i.e. the fastest it can warm) will come down a bit, which is good. The more time we spend on the details of second order effects, the more the range that each predicted range will cover will decrease.

It's sad that research gets used in such a way. The closest analog in contemporary media is the anti-vaxxer hype - a new study that shows a weak link between aluminum and Alzheimer's is immediately pounced on by the anti-vaxxers as "proof that vaccines cause autism!" I recall the author of one such study warning in the conclusion that his study had nothing to do with vaccine adjuvants. (Ignored by anti-vaxxers of course.)

Overall I find it interesting that on this forum I am labeled an alarmist by some because I think that the climate is warming due primarily to Man's actions. On more than one science forum I have been called a denier because I don't think that the results of climate change will be Armageddon, and I think that we have some good options when it comes to controlling our emissions. It depends, I think, on what side of the forum-defined "fence" I fall on. And for people who only have two categories - us and them - that determines my pigeonhole.