A long series on climate change

[W. Rabbit]

Rabbit, why exactly would you not be allowed to post on a martial arts website?

Thanks for posting the first of what I'm sure are several absolutely uninteresting PMs between us. I'm making popcorn now.

If you're asking why I don't talk about work online, you're either trolling or dumb or both. My money is on both.

Maybe your own SUPPOSED "MS in Compsci" is from a degree mill....you dismiss NASA climate science as if it were spam email.

Tell us...when you got your SUPPOSED master's degree in computer science...were they also interested in using your bank account stationary to move funds for Nigerian heirs?

[Cullion]

No, it wasn't a diploma mill.

Why would you not be allowed to post on a martial arts website, Rabbit ?

I think that was a dramatic lie to try and persuade me not to continue embarrassing you, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if you can give a sane explanation.

[W. Rabbit]

I've read the NASA FAQ and it's an argument from authority containing several assertions, at least one of which is based on predictions from models that have already been falsified, and at least one of which is refuted in the IPCCs own soon to be published AR5 report (regarding solar forcing).

See how you use weighed terms like "falsified" and "refuted" when in fact those are not accurate?

Much like "public rape"...all to get you back to your political bias against greenhouse regulations...because your point (several times now) is that no matter what NASA and the scientific community agree on, regulating is bad.

[W. Rabbit]

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if you can give a sane explanation.

Sane explanation: Bosses said "don't do it", so I don't (not in a public forum, anyway).

Applies to Facebook, Twitter, and yes even mighty Bullshido.

Note that it happily doesn't apply to talking about martial arts or global warming, so I do enjoy a sliver of freedom online.

[Cullion]

See how you use weighed terms like "falsified" and "refuted" when in fact those are not accurate?

Yes, they are in fact accurate. NASA's been using predictions from models where observed temperature is well outside the error bounds of the model for years.

Much like "public rape"...all to get you back to your political bias against greenhouse regulations...because your point (several times now) is that no matter what NASA and the scientific community agree on, regulating is bad.

No, regulation is bad when it imposes a large burden on ordinary people to try and avert a disaster which there isn't sound grounds for expecting. Science isn't a democracy, it's about making predictions and seeing if they come true. Not a vote. Any sane person should be worried about and skeptical towards people trying to use scary scenarios to change the way they live, when the models they derive those scare stories from don't tally with observation.

[Cullion]

Sane explanation: Bosses said "don't do it", so I don't (not in this forum anyway).

Applies to Facebook, Twitter, and yes even Bullshido.

In that case, how could you be internationally recognised in your field and receive awards as you claimed ? How could you have published in publicly available sources ?

Have you published in peer reviewed scientific journals or not?

[W. Rabbit]

Yes, they are in fact accurate. NASA's been using predictions from models where observed temperature is well outside the error bounds of the model for years.

I know it's hard to believe at this stage you haven't provided any sources, mainstream or otherwise, for any of the times you've "refuted" IPCC or NASA or the National Science Foundation or The Journal of Nature. Because if you had, then it would actually be possible to determine "he's being sincere" vs. "he's hedging".

Your MO is :

Refute Nature, but no source.

Refute NSF, but no source.

WHERE'S IN THE BOX RABBIT???

Refute NASA, but no source.

No, regulation is bad when it imposes a large burden on ordinary people to try and avert a disaster which there isn't sound grounds for expecting. Science isn't a democracy, it's about making predictions and seeing if they come true. Not a vote. Any sane person should be worried about and skeptical towards people trying to use scary scenarios to change the way they live, when the models they derive those scare stories from don't tally with observation.

Thanks for that impassioned speech, I imagined it in Churchill's voice to give it extra flare.

In that case, how could you be internationally recognised in your field and receive awards as you claimed ?

Thankfully I'm not a total spook like my grandpa.

[Cullion]

I've posted multiple sources, but you either don't read them or claim they're bogus because despite being peer-reviewed academic research you think that anything hosted on a site run by somebody who agrees with me and not you is automatically false.

The people you believe have said, for years, that it should be much warmer now than it actually is. That's just a fact, and even most proponents of the AGW hypothesis now acknowledge it.

Now, you either think it doesn't matter that it's not warmer, or you dispute the temperature graphs I've shown you. Which is it ?

Have you published peer-reviewed science in recognised journals or not ?

[W. Rabbit]

I've posted multiple sources

Not lately, in fact you've casually dismissed almost everything everyone else has posted in the thread.

Whereas I have merely dismissed you. You can feel free to dismiss me too if you wish, but stick to me. NASA, NSF, Nature, EPA, and climate science in general are clearly beyond your borders.

but you either don't read them or claim they're bogus because despite being peer-reviewed academic research

I read it all. Show me, where did you source a respectable scientific periodical or body that actually supported your positions against AGW? I've traced your most enthusiastic claim back to hit pieces at the Daily Mail.

The people you believe have said, for years, that it should be much warmer now than it actually is. That's just a fact, and even most proponents of the AGW hypothesis now acknowledge it.

Yep models change over time. That's why we use models and simulations.

They don't get "raped" though, nor do new hypotheses categorically erase decades of climate research just because the data suggests new variables might have to be considered.

Now, you either think it doesn't matter that it's not warmer, or you dispute the temperature graphs I've shown you. Which is it ?

This is a false dichotomy. What I think is completely different than your options. What I know is your assertion about it not getting warmer is based on a very selective viewpoint that doesn't match up with the entire realm of climate science.

But what I think also doesn't matter.

Have you published peer-reviewed science in recognised journals or not ?

Listen, I have to get to training.

Maybe someday we can sit down over a pint and I'll share my story. But it is not this day.

[W. Rabbit]

Summary version of this thread:

Cullion believes this sensationalist piece of Daily Mail, widely discredited by actual scientists, which claims that "Global Warming Stopped 16 years ago"...which is of course, a completely obvious logical fallacy and misrepresentation of the data.

Yet here we are, Cullion relying on AGW hit journalism for his "sources".

Daily Mail (British Tabloid)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-prove-it.html

Discovery ("Pop" Science Periodical/Programming):

http://weather-underground.discovery...l?entrynum=239