olofscience

I must have struck a nerve, since it's the 3rd time you've been caught trying to use jargon that you had no idea about. You were quoting semiconductor physics you didn't understand and billvon (who worked with one of the biggest SEMICONDUCTOR companies in the world) caught you out You were quoting a paper about vegetation saying it was "real world observation, not a model" when it actually said MODEL in the title of the paper last year. Your excuse? "I misread it, it was quick google search" You quoted the NOAA SRES model thinking it was real-world observation of ice accumulation in Antarctica, and I pointed out to you it was a MODEL (again) and you fell back to the NOAA article because that was about the limit of your understanding. But yes, you really sound like a whuffo fake skydiver trying to impress with their fake skydiving knowledge. Not quite as entertaining as Zoe was, but I look forward to adding to the list. Embarrassment to their side? I hate to break it to you, but it's not looking good for you, bud.

Let's pick up where we left off then, the most recent time brenthutch got owned: He was crowing about how the NOAA was saying it was the coldest February since 2014, but he kept changing it to 1998. (even if it's in the TITLE of the article he was quoting) When I said it was actually slightly warmer than average in February in the UK, he said "HA! The Met said it was "near average" NOT "slightly warmer than average"!" I asked "Is that all you got?" crickets... after 24 hours of silence from brent, Wendy helpfully locks the thread Then brent pops up in another thread, which gets locked again. Then he says it's me that could get this thread locked

If I'm 12 and I can read scientific papers, what does that make you?

Run, forrest, run!

You must like losing want to play again?

Phys.org posted another article, "5 ways to spot if someone is trying to mislead you when it comes to science". It's mostly about covid-19, but it's also applicable to a particular poster here. The 'us versus them' narrative "I'm not a scientist, but…' Reference to 'the science not being settled' Overly simplistic explanations Cherry-picking I highly recommend the article, see if it reminds you of someone.

And I was right. The Met said "near average" and I said "slightly warmer than average" and that's all you got? Nice try though. I think it's been pretty clear to everyone who doesn't have a clue here.

Actually I am being precise. Do you know which part of the UK I'm in? Also I did say February. Your Met quote said "winter" which covers part of December until the equinox in March. But February by itself was slightly above average. What's that I hear - are those crickets?

Of course, and here's my counsel - burn it. Burn everything. Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Right, I'm rescinding my invitation. Your arguments will continue to be destroyed and I'll continue to show every reader here how pathetic and stupid your arguments are. It's nothing to wet the bed about, but don't let that stop you.

No, if you're talking about global temperatures, then it's been the coldest since 2014. It's right there in the title of the NOAA article you were quoting! I literally just said it was just about average.

I actually completely missed this one, but not surprising. It sounds like one of those fake skydivers trying to impress a girl telling them they skydive in the special forces and saying they wingsuit from a SR-71 from 70k at Mach 3 but in reality they've only done a tandem and photoshopped the instructor out. Just imagine that for a second - that's how you sound to us, brent. If a fake skydiver gets caught out I'll actually ask them - "come join us and actually learn skydiving for real. It's awesome and you'll love it." So same here - come join us, properly learn science. It's awesome and you'll love it.

Fixed it for you. I'm not even there. Here in the UK, February 2021 was actually slightly warmer than average. You think you have a point, you actually don't.

yes and brent uses the same tactics as Zoe - reams of highly technical language to impress and intimidate, but when you actually look into it they have no clue at all. brent actually does one better - he'll quote reams of highly technical language and it'll turn out that the quote is actually completely opposite to his point, because he had no idea what it was saying in the first place. Then he will try to run away from it by saying "I meant to show that it was contradictory" or some other lame excuse.

brenthutch? I don't think there's any risk of that happening at all.

Sure, but you think you're qualified to criticise their work when you can't even read it.

Then betting that 2021 will be colder on average wouldn't be a problem, right? And no, I'd be personally glad if the warming trend stopped. Jeez you have issues

One more gem from that NOAA article that brent keeps quoting: But he doesn't get past the first sentence of the title

Yeah but that's just about the limit of your understanding. You want to compare that with models, but you can't even READ the models correctly.

But the problem is you've demonstrated at least twice that you can't tell between actual observations and models, because both are usually written in highly technical language. So if you can't tell between observed temperatures and models, why should anyone believe you?

Nope it wasn't. Here's the post in question: No sign of any brenthutch comment on it. There's another one, but you actually look like you agree with their model, A1B scenario: Looks like you're running out of excuses now.

Well, why didn't you say it when you posted it? that would have saved us so much trouble! I can actually clarify the confusion for you: they predicted several "what if" scenarios so there's no surprise some of them will contradict each other. They've actually already superseded this with another set of models and scenarios. This is definitely true, but the main problem is you don't have the knowledge to be a critic. That's not an insult - I don't have the knowledge either, since I work in a different field. And no, attacking them or their integrity isn't criticism of their model - it's an attack on their person. So if you don't have any expertise to actually criticise their model, that's all you'll fall back to.

That's all you have to say? You don't have an argument, so I should just say you're right? Dream on

But you were quoting that model because you thought it showed ice buildup in Antarctica. And there's NO ACTUAL OBSERVATION to compare for that model because the model was for the year 2100. It's 2021. So you're lying, yet again.

I think it was to show that you have no idea about science, let alone know whether it was settled or not. Yet again...if the climate models run much hotter than observation, why did you quote one so many times?