On 08/10/2015 09:34 AM, Wally W. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:22:50 -0700, Snidely wrote:

On Saturday, Wally W. pointed out that ...
On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:42:37 -0700, Snidely wrote:

Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit :
Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions:
http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/

CFACT

CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers
through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing
because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret.

:-)

Now to the content of that link

They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that
says that

quote
we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real
world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming
end quote

Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper...

Mr Spencer just SAYS SO.

Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right.

You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you?


Who is that guy?

So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong.


See:
Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm

Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall
Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and
public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a
libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also
listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental
Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic"
organization

So?

All you have is ad hom?

Are you going to show those 73 models to be right?

It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All
models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be
expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is
inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of
hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the
displacement input is too large.

Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect
the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to
understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate
research.

Which says something about the relevance of the "research" to the real
world, doesn't it?


Why not?

Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right.

Do you agree they are wrong?

If so, what are you whingeing about?

All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is
right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as
the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being
perfect is asinine.

So is looking to models instead of reality.

Reality: no warming for 18+ years.

The models told us the sky was falling and we were all gonna die.

As you walk across the sinkholes in the tundra, just keep saying "it's
still frozen, it's still frozen".

There were times in the past when it wasn't frozen.

Was it a problem then?

You just don't get it Wally. Even though the one universally accepted
rule of History is "The Certainty of Change", All those who believe in
"global warming" have the idea that somehow all change must be STOPPED!

Seas must be stopped from rising, glaciers stopped from receding, and
tundra stopped from ever thawing. If only they could get that mile of
ice back over top of my house! Maybe stopping all use of fossil fuels
could help? It's worth a try, right?

And HVAC calls ME the "kook"!








--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/