Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (21309)	6/10/2017 11:00:26 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356710

Here we go again but you never addressed the questions I posed before. Because you cannot. What you posted is not even a valid criticism of the Christy chart. It is yet another weak, warmist's failed attempt to wiggle away from the fact: The IPCC models -- the ones IPCC considers to make valid points, don't come anywhere CLOSE to approximating future outcomes. We see it year after year. As Feynman so eloquently put it, "If it doesn't agree with nature, it is WRONG." These models do not agree with nature. And they are WRONG. PERIOD. In the first comparison chart, what they're calling "trend lines" are linear least squares approximations of clearly nonlinear results. I'm not sure how you or the author thinks that provides more useful information. I just don't know what the point of that is. Can you EXPLAIN? Using the mean of the 102 models is a totally acceptable procedure for the type of comparison Cristy was trying to make. This should be apparent, since NONE of the individual models represented came ANYWHERE NEAR the results taken from NATURE. "If it doesn't agree with nature, it is WRONG. It doesn't matter who did it, what his name is,", etc., if it doesn't agree with nature it is WRONG." Feynman would say to you that statement is the essence of science. If that is the way you want to go with this, here is a beatdown of the criticisms leveled against Cristy's analysis. It is fairly conclusive. cei.org The final paragraph is the heart of the problem: I’ll let Cato Institute scientist Patrick Michaels have the last word on the graph from Christy’s testimony against which Nuccitelli rails: “It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong.” The Michaels commentary is worth reading in full: cato.org