Har Har Har Global warming crap
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
The most obvious problem with global warming theory is how unqualified most of it's proponents are. Modeling the climate is a 10+ on the math / physics difficulty scale, and that level of difficulty is far beyond the education level of any climate theorist.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say, there, and I suspect, neither do you.Tero wrote:Your equally long period is just two points in 100 years. A point is a 5 year average. If these concept are too hard for you, this site has impartial data, nothing cherrypicked:
If English isn't your first language, then I suppose that might be why you can't explain what you mean.
But I suspect that you don't really know.
And the site is nothing but a link-store. I have plenty of links.
Last edited by mistermack on Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- rainbow
- Posts: 13760
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
- About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet. - Location: Africa
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
Interesting. What are the limits of your 'math / physics difficulty scale'?Tyrannical wrote:The most obvious problem with global warming theory is how unqualified most of it's proponents are. Modeling the climate is a 10+ on the math / physics difficulty scale, and that level of difficulty is far beyond the education level of any climate theorist.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4
BArF−4
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
Now, now. Attacking someone's English language skills is kind of low. Everyone who posts here's English is perfect as far as I can tell. If you don't mind the spelling and grammar.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51250
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 15-32-25
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
2000-2005 is one point.2005 to 2010 is one point, averaged. Do you speak math?mistermack wrote:I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say, there, and I suspect, neither do you.Tero wrote:Your equally long period is just two points in 100 years. A point is a 5 year average. If these concept are too hard for you, this site has impartial data, nothing cherrypicked:
If English isn't your first language, then I suppose that might be why you can't explain what you mean.
But I suspect that you don't really know.
And the site is nothing but a link-store. I have plenty of links.
It's like religion, you skeptics have to reject all the concensus conclusions. Cause it's a global librul conspiracy?
Last edited by Tero on Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
The biggest lie that is pushed by the modelers is that they can predict the climate.
Their models have completely failed to forecast the average temp for the last five years, for the previous five years, for the five years before that, or the five years before that.
But they are still trying to convince us that they know what a five-year average will be, in fifty years time.
Bollocks.
Their models have completely failed to forecast the average temp for the last five years, for the previous five years, for the five years before that, or the five years before that.
But they are still trying to convince us that they know what a five-year average will be, in fifty years time.
Bollocks.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
I'd put climate modeling at the top of the difficulty scale. Other things that are up there are modeling nuclear chain reactions, those gravity sling shot tricks with space probes, whatever those particle physicists at CERN do. Stuff that takes really, really smart math and physics PhDs to even have a chance to figure out. Qualifications lacking in most if not all so called climate scientists.rainbow wrote:Interesting. What are the limits of your 'math / physics difficulty scale'?Tyrannical wrote:The most obvious problem with global warming theory is how unqualified most of it's proponents are. Modeling the climate is a 10+ on the math / physics difficulty scale, and that level of difficulty is far beyond the education level of any climate theorist.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
Look, if you can't explain yourself, then I think it's YOU that needs more communication lessons.Tero wrote:mistermack wrote: 2000-2005 is obe point.2005 to 2010 is one point, averaged. Do you speak math?
I have no idea what point you are trying to make, and I don't go in for mind-reading.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
The most obvious problem with global warming theory is how unqualified most of it's proponents are. Modeling the climate is a 10+ on the math / physics difficulty scale, and that level of difficulty is far beyond the education level of any climate theorist.



MMs of course spouting crap again as well.Gavin A. Schmidt
Classé dans:
Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He has worked on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.
He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He is a co-chair of the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection Panel and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate.
He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences.
He has over 90 peer-reviewed publications and is the co-author with Josh Wolfe of “Climate Change: Picturing the Science” (W. W. Norton, 2009), a collaboration between climate scientists and photographers. He was awarded the inaugural AGU Climate Communications Prize in 2011.
AR4 modeling

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htmTamino compares IPCC AR4 model results (grey lines with model average as black line) to observations (
and one of the earliest 1981 - was a bit conservative and one reason is that it is impossible to know how much C02 humans will emit - something that seems to elude the scientifically illiterate right wingdings here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... rojection/To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.
Get over it....
It's warming, we're responsible,
Deal with it instead of looking seriously dumb AND ill informed as climate change deniers are wont to do.

Last edited by macdoc on Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51250
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 15-32-25
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
Mm, You are foaming at the mouth now. It's there in plain English.
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
Foaming ? what else is new when you have no basis for a conjecture - only invective and meaningless polemics from the denidiots.....par for the course.
Reminds me of the anti-nuke idjits.
Reminds me of the anti-nuke idjits.

Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51250
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 15-32-25
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
It was a response to mistermack,mm who claims not to understand a five year average/mean:
Look, if you can't explain yourself, then I think it's YOU that needs more communication lessons.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make, and I don't go in for mind-reading.
Look, if you can't explain yourself, then I think it's YOU that needs more communication lessons.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make, and I don't go in for mind-reading.
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
No it's you. You make cryptic comments, and try to pretend that you are saying so much more.Tero wrote:It was a response to mistermack,mm who claims not to understand a five year average/mean:
Look, if you can't explain yourself, then I think it's YOU that needs more communication lessons.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make, and I don't go in for mind-reading.
You're not, you're wasting your breath, unless you fill in the point you are trying to make. If you don't say exactly what your point is, your cryptic comments are meaningless.
And macdoc, I see you are just posting loads of stuff, straight from rabid bloggers again.
You don't change much, do you? You seem to be trying to give an impression that you know what you are talking about, by linking to other peoples' biased blogging. It might fool some people, I guess. But where does it get you?
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 51250
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 15-32-25
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
My point has been registered. It refutes the opening post. You don't have sufficient data for the claim. You need >20 more years for that claim. The claim of "it's not warming anymore."
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap
You are just making an unsupported claim there. I can't take you seriously. You don't say where you got this magic twenty year period from, or why it's critical. It appears that you just pulled it out of your ass.Tero wrote:My point has been registered. It refutes the opening post. You don't have sufficient data for the claim. You need >20 more years for that claim. The claim of "it's not warming anymore."
And it coincidentally invalidates the previous warming period, if it's true.
I've been reading all of this crap for the last ten years, from QUALIFIED climate scientists. People were saying it wasn't statistically significant, till it reached ten years, then fifteen years. Now, the steady period is approaching twenty years, and you are pulling the 20 year period out of your ass.
I guess in a couple of years time, you will be saying 25 years.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests