Quote:
Originally Posted by Clippo
Look back at the so-called ‘evidence’ links that mpkdavies and Poptech, (if they are different posters), have provided in recent posts. See if you can recognise any of these Institutes or Centers and see if you can recognise repeating names of scientists.
|
Please look at the actual evidence I provide. Yes repeated names of real scientists. I realize that is hard for you to comprehend but they are real scientists with degrees. Oh yes we are different posters please stop with the conspiracies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clippo
Type them into Wikipedia if you wish or go to the link I gave somewhere recently :-
Logical Science Incidentally, you may want to go to the page there which discusses ‘AGW consensus’ for ammo – but the sceptics conveniently try to deny that. |
I already explained wikipedia is worthless. Your AGW alarmist site logical science is out of ammo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clippo
It seems to me Climate change sceptics particularly, love wiki when it says things they may want to read but it is totally ‘rubbish’ when there are ‘Inconvenient Truths’ to them in it.
|
Really? First I have heard of this. My position has never changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clippo
Continuing the AGW ‘consensus’ theme, besides the humungous volume of support for AGW from around the world, I see that there is, in the last few days a published survey in the USA which says (I think I published this as a thread recently):-
STATS: Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change
An extract :-
(BTW, this poll was carried out for STATS by Robert Lichter who has links, I believe to Fox news – another notorious anti AGW media organisation. So it must be good.
To cover myself I will only say that this information is second hand & I haven’t had chance to verify it in my usual way). |
Your poll is of 489 professional scientists from organizations that have 12,000 members (AMS) and 45000 (AGU). How do you determine consensus by polling only 0.8% of it's members?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clippo
Re:- Mpkdavies statement over ‘models' - ( garbage in, garbage out ) - he frankly is in the climate-modelling dark-ages. He wouldn’t recognise a computer climate model if it hit him on the head.
|
I would since I am a computer scientist and have experience with computer modeling and what Mpkdavies states is corect:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clippo
Much of the ground breaking mathematics which underpins most Climate models, both Atmospheric and Oceanic, was developed by Ed Lorenz who died very recently. He was also responsible for the bulk of the mathematics of Chaos theory – held in the highest regard around the world. A summary of his life & work appears both in Wiki and recently in www.realclimate.com
Furthermore, this site is pure ‘gold’ for scientific FACTS about all disciplines related to global warming. They have a post filter mechanism which stops the ‘mindless’ sceptics diarrhoea -ing the phoney papers and links that you have seen so much of here recently. |
This is nice rhetoric but does not change how computers work or the problems with the models:
"
The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse gases."
Realclimate is home to alarmist scientists and the unofficial AGW headquarters.