4 ms·

So, the only thing that you have to back your claims is a post from WUWT, a know denier site that has lied a lot of times. I will suppose that you don't have a

by Oletros 11y ago

So, the only thing that you have to back your claims is a post from WUWT, a know denier site that has lied a lot of times. I will suppose that you don't have anything

pdonis 11y ago
> the only thing that you have to back your claims is a post from WUWT A post which gives specific quotes and references from the IPCC AR5. Whatever you might think of WUWT in general, this particular post is talking about what the IPCC itself is saying.
- Oletros 11y ago
  Wrong, the bullshit you linked has nothing to do with what IPCC really said
  - pdonis 11y ago
    I guess we're just going to have to disagree.
pdonis 11y ago
> a know denier site that has lied a lot of times I could just as well say that a site like RealClimate is "a known alarmist site that has lied a lot of times". At that point we're just pointing fingers and arguing from authority, not substance. That's why I picked an article that specifically quotes and references the IPCC AR5 itself, rather than one of the hundreds of critical papers and articles that have been published by skeptics on the mismatch between the models and the data.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > I could just as well say that a site like RealClimate is "a known alarmist site that has lied a lot of times" No, you can´t if you don´t lie > At that point we're just pointing fingers and arguing from authority, No, WUWT has no authority because nobody on this site is a climate scientist > That's why I picked an article that specifically quotes and references the IPCC AR5 itself No, you quoted an article where someone interpreted what the IPCC said. You didn't quoted anything from the IPCC. And that was your claim > rather than one of the hundreds of critical papers and articles that have been published by skeptics on the mismatch between the models and the data. Still waiting one of those articles from climate scientists But I will wait a lot, you're just another denier that has nothing to back what you write
  - pdonis 11y ago
    > WUWT has no authority because nobody on this site is a climate scientist In other words, you would rather argue from authority than look at the actual substance. Thank you for making your position clear. > You didn't quoted anything from the IPCC The article I linked to had direct quotes from the IPCC AR5. > Still waiting one of those articles from climate scientists Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, to name just two, are climate scientists and have written skeptical papers. But there's nothing magical about the label "climate scientist" that makes what they say correct. You have to look at the actual substance. But you've already indicated you don't want to do that, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.
    - acqq 11y ago
      Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen claims are provably scientifically wrong, their claims don't match what is already observed around the world: http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/06/denial-hire-richard-lindzen-cites-debunked-science-defend-willie-soon-wsj http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/06/denial-hire-richard-lin... https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm You can have any religion you want but don't expect to be considered of any scientific significance (except as the example of a deluded mind) if your claims don't match the reality. As you've said: "You have to look at the actual substance." I know one older guy who I really respect, and with nice scientific background, whose political beliefs would make him agreeing with the "deniers." He started to blog how global warming is a lie etc. I've just sent him the links to really look at the data, the scientific work and to check himself. He never wrote or said anything against global warming again. You seem to have more scientific background than a lawyer, maybe you should honestly check the figures, facts and formulas just once...
      - pdonis 11y ago
        > Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen claims are provably scientifically wrong I can't find any source for the data underlying the graph in your first link comparing Hansen to Lindzen regarding temperature predictions. The skeptical science article it is attributed to has a link to a 1988 Hansen paper that is broken ("not found"), and a link to a 1989 MIT Tech Talk article quoting Lindzen that has no graph at all and does not make any temperature prediction. So as far as I can tell, the supposed comparison in that graph has no factual basis. Your second link shows multiple comparisons between statements Spencer has made and the "mainstream" IPCC position on climate science; the differences between them would be more accurately described as differences in opinion on how to interpret the data and how to make predictions, not as showing that Spencer is "provably scientifically wrong". > As you've said: "You have to look at the actual substance." Yes, I did. See above. > maybe you should honestly check the figures, facts and formulas just once... I have been, for quite some time now. As I said, we're just going to have to disagree.

by Oletros 11y ago

So, the only thing that you have to back your claims is a post from WUWT, a know denier site that has lied a lot of times. I will suppose that you don't have anything

pdonis 11y ago

> the only thing that you have to back your claims is a post from WUWT A post which gives specific quotes and references from the IPCC AR5. Whatever you might think of WUWT in general, this particular post is talking about what the IPCC itself is saying.

Oletros 11y ago
Wrong, the bullshit you linked has nothing to do with what IPCC really said
- pdonis 11y ago
  I guess we're just going to have to disagree.

pdonis 11y ago

> a know denier site that has lied a lot of times I could just as well say that a site like RealClimate is "a known alarmist site that has lied a lot of times". At that point we're just pointing fingers and arguing from authority, not substance. That's why I picked an article that specifically quotes and references the IPCC AR5 itself, rather than one of the hundreds of critical papers and articles that have been published by skeptics on the mismatch between the models and the data.

Oletros 11y ago
> I could just as well say that a site like RealClimate is "a known alarmist site that has lied a lot of times" No, you can´t if you don´t lie > At that point we're just pointing fingers and arguing from authority, No, WUWT has no authority because nobody on this site is a climate scientist > That's why I picked an article that specifically quotes and references the IPCC AR5 itself No, you quoted an article where someone interpreted what the IPCC said. You didn't quoted anything from the IPCC. And that was your claim > rather than one of the hundreds of critical papers and articles that have been published by skeptics on the mismatch between the models and the data. Still waiting one of those articles from climate scientists But I will wait a lot, you're just another denier that has nothing to back what you write
- pdonis 11y ago
  > WUWT has no authority because nobody on this site is a climate scientist In other words, you would rather argue from authority than look at the actual substance. Thank you for making your position clear. > You didn't quoted anything from the IPCC The article I linked to had direct quotes from the IPCC AR5. > Still waiting one of those articles from climate scientists Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, to name just two, are climate scientists and have written skeptical papers. But there's nothing magical about the label "climate scientist" that makes what they say correct. You have to look at the actual substance. But you've already indicated you don't want to do that, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.
  - acqq 11y ago
    Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen claims are provably scientifically wrong, their claims don't match what is already observed around the world: http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/06/denial-hire-richard-lindzen-cites-debunked-science-defend-willie-soon-wsj http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/06/denial-hire-richard-lin... https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm You can have any religion you want but don't expect to be considered of any scientific significance (except as the example of a deluded mind) if your claims don't match the reality. As you've said: "You have to look at the actual substance." I know one older guy who I really respect, and with nice scientific background, whose political beliefs would make him agreeing with the "deniers." He started to blog how global warming is a lie etc. I've just sent him the links to really look at the data, the scientific work and to check himself. He never wrote or said anything against global warming again. You seem to have more scientific background than a lawyer, maybe you should honestly check the figures, facts and formulas just once...
    - pdonis 11y ago
      > Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen claims are provably scientifically wrong I can't find any source for the data underlying the graph in your first link comparing Hansen to Lindzen regarding temperature predictions. The skeptical science article it is attributed to has a link to a 1988 Hansen paper that is broken ("not found"), and a link to a 1989 MIT Tech Talk article quoting Lindzen that has no graph at all and does not make any temperature prediction. So as far as I can tell, the supposed comparison in that graph has no factual basis. Your second link shows multiple comparisons between statements Spencer has made and the "mainstream" IPCC position on climate science; the differences between them would be more accurately described as differences in opinion on how to interpret the data and how to make predictions, not as showing that Spencer is "provably scientifically wrong". > As you've said: "You have to look at the actual substance." Yes, I did. See above. > maybe you should honestly check the figures, facts and formulas just once... I have been, for quite some time now. As I said, we're just going to have to disagree.