Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...

Bill Todd wrote:
Dr. Dweeb wrote:
Bill Todd wrote:
Dr. Dweeb wrote:
Bill Todd wrote:
Dr. Dweeb wrote:

...

Heck, they can't even explain precisely why electrical currents
occur in a generator.
No, but they have an *excellent* record of being able not only
to predict them but to use these predictions to make significant
improvements.
Unlike climatologists, who are batting 0 for 14, or worse.
I consider it rather unlikely that you have any clue whatsoever
what they are batting - it certainly sounds as if you are merely
regurgitating the most recent specific result that you heard
about. But by all means feel free to come up with the kind of
comprehensive review of climatological predictions that could
justify that rather sweeping generalization: demonstrating that
kind of discipline would be a unique event for your side of the
discussion.
Why don't you just come up with one?
Because I'm not the one disputing the widely-accepted scientific
conclusions drawn from these studies and offering up completely
unsupported conspiracy theories about why that high level of
acceptance should be discounted.


I have not been able to find one reference suggesting that any
current models are able to predict the present from the known past. There
are plenty of scientists observing this fact. Some of my
previous references contain such observations.

So, yet again, instead of coming up with actual data to support your
generalization above, all you trot out are equally-nebulous
generalizations from other sources which you choose to find credible.

I referred to previous references made in this thread, and made the
observation that I had found none suggesting that any significant
predictability (ie. concordance with empirical evidence).

I think that both are reasoned and reasonable.


You didn't merely suggest that climate projections were sometimes
(even often) far from perfect: you trotted out actual numbers and

0 for 14 was, I admit an attempt at levity.
The actual value is 0 for 19, see reference below.

suggested they constituted an upper limit on success (without even
getting into *qualitative* assessments regarding how close
projections came in various aspects - you know, the pesky fact that
they don't have to be perfect in order to provide significant valid
insight). *That* requires similarly-quantitative substantiation (or,

Wrong != "significant valid insight" - see reference below.

of course, retraction if you're unwilling to step up to the plate and
provide some).
Don't you get tired of (in fact, I'd be downright embarrassed by)
writing content-free posts and studiously ignoring direct challenges
to provide something better?

This one is pretty thorough at debunking AIT - which is, after all is said
and done the most obvious popular mouthpiece of your position at this time.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/skepticguide.pdf

It takes a while to get through, but most of the bad science in AIT and the
whole AGW movement comes in for quite careful treatment.

Knock yourself out.

Can I expect a 200 page counter document ?


Dweeb

- bill


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... Unlike climatologists, who are batting 0 for 14, or worse. ... review of climatological predictions that could justify that rather ... So, yet again, instead of coming up with actual data to support your generalization above, all you trot out are equally-nebulous generalizations from other sources which you choose to find credible. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: That fails SETI also (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... Make a prediction from the generalization. ... What empirical observations lead to your hypothesis? ... What is the scientific and logical basis for each of those ... What predictions derive directly from your hypothesis? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lorentz Ether Theory and FTL Paradoxes
    ... The fact that the fields we observe fit in such a nice and simple ... it makes predictions similar to GR. ... Inflation falsifies some versions of GR, but it is possible to invent ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins E=mc2 Generalized , book published from New York , USA
    ... Reference of any journals, ... If it is, give specifc reference. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: generalizations
    ... making a generalization. ... I guess you are not going to justify your assertion by any direct ... reference to what I wrote. ...
    (soc.atheism)