Climate Research

[EternalOptimist]

Worst case scenario, you can replace that with whatever negative outcome would be likely were it to be true.

so you are sort of not sure whether we are affecting the climate, not really sure about any concrete evidence and none too certain about what the impact will be in any event.

And you dont mind being wrong.

But something must be done.

[MarillionFan]

so you are sort of not sure whether we are affecting the climate, not really sure about any concrete evidence and none too certain about what the impact will be in any event.

And you dont mind being wrong.

But something must be done.

Fairly certain a hot wind has come over this thread.

[kandr]

so you are sort of not sure whether we are affecting the climate, not really sure about any concrete evidence and none too certain about what the impact will be in any event.

And you dont mind being wrong.

But something must be done.

I think the evidence is in favour of man made climate change, but I am not 100% convinced. I know if it is true there will be devastating effects and I would rather make some simple changes and avoid those catastrophes than not admit to being wrong. That is my view, I can't state it more clearly than that.

[RichardCranium]

so you are sort of not sure whether we are affecting the climate, not really sure about any concrete evidence and none too certain about what the impact will be in any event.

And you dont mind being wrong.

But something must be done.

I think he's having an attention-seeking day today.

Probably because the schools are closed and he's bored.

[kandr]

I think he's having an attention-seeking day today.

Probably because the schools are closed and he's bored.

Groan, what a moron, please stop stalking me.. that reminds me of this OS system MS released widely regarded as the worst ever, around 10 years ago. Wonder if anyone still uses it? Nah no one is that stupid.

[EternalOptimist]

I think the evidence is in favour of man made climate change, but I am not 100% convinced. I know if it is true there will be devastating effects and I would rather make some simple changes and avoid those catastrophes than not admit to being wrong. That is my view, I can't state it more clearly than that.

Everyone is entitled to a view.

Unfortunately , science doesnt care much for viewpoints, it relies on a tried and tested method. When people try to subvert this method by foisting views, beliefs or hidden agendas, masquerading as science, we are in trouble.

Come back and have another go when you have some evidence

[doodab]

Climate sceptics have done something that the AGW lot should have done years ago. they have taken half of the data, run it through the models, then checked to see if it predicted the second half of the data. it didnt. this is aka hindcasting.

The AGW lot didnt bother with this technique, why should they when the science is settled?

Of course they didn't. It's not like it's standard practice to verify a numerical simulation against known good data to make sure it's not outputting utter bollocks.

Here's some articles about some of the backtesting / hindcasting they didn't bother with and how accurate the models aren't.

Climate 411 » Climate Models: How Good Are They? - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund

And another one

Science of Global Warming, Climate Change: Climate Models

Here's another article explaining how they didn't even bother to use a volcanic eruption to provide further confidence they are vaguely useful

How reliable are climate models?

Reasonable doubt is one thing, but there is plenty of room for that without resorting to talking utter cock.

[RichardCranium]

Groan, what a moron, please stop stalking me.. that reminds me of this OS system MS released widely regarded as the worst ever, around 10 years ago. Wonder if anyone still uses it? Nah no one is that stupid.

To replace the software you are referring to, would require replacing the hardware. But it still works.

So I am not wasting resources and thereby helping to save the planet (assuming it both requires and deserves saving).

Or should I just throw away a working PC and buy another just to stop your playground taunts? Would that be less stupid?

Grow up.

[sasguru]

Unfortunately , science doesnt care much for viewpoints, it relies on a tried and tested method. When people try to subvert this method by foisting views, beliefs or hidden agendas, masquerading as science, we are in trouble.

Come back and have another go when you have some evidence

You really are a laughing stock of an ignorant buffoon.
In a previous post you criticise GW science saying it based on "models and theories", not realising that all science is based on models and theories.
Why don't you come back when you've educated yourself in a basic way on what science really is.
I recommend Popper and Kuhn for that purpose, if the words aren't too long for you.

[EternalOptimist]

Of course they didn't. It's not like it's standard practice to verify a numerical simulation against known good data to make sure it's not outputting utter bollocks.

Here's some articles about some of the backtesting / hindcasting they didn't bother with and how accurate the models aren't.

Climate 411 » Climate Models: How Good Are They? - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund

And another one

Science of Global Warming, Climate Change: Climate Models

Here's another article explaining how they didn't even bother to use a volcanic eruption to provide further confidence they are vaguely useful

How reliable are climate models?

Reasonable doubt is one thing, but there is plenty of room for that without resorting to talking utter cock.

No need to be insulting doodab.

All this shows is that the models are tuned in to the 1970's and on.

try hindcasting them back a bit, you will see what I mean