4 ms·

Doesn't it worry you at all that you have cited no academic literature in journals? You have an OpEd piece, a youtube video (the producer of which is known for

Doesn't it worry you at all that you have cited no academic literature in journals? You have an OpEd piece, a youtube video (the producer of which is known for replying to an email critiquing his use of data with "You’re a big daft c*ck"... people can google Martin Durkin and make their own conclusions about him), and the blog of a creationist who refers to those he disagrees with as "global warming Nazis"?

mistermann 11y ago
Has this other model been proven incorrect?
- throwaway5752 11y ago
  None of the three other articles refers to any model. The closest is Dr. Spencer. His published work been critiqued by better people than me, and is readily discoverable via search engine. I can find no record of him making predictions of future warming, just criticism of existing models over the nature of atmospheric water vapor, cloud formation, and infrared reflectivity. His claims are highly disputed (search for "Remote Sensing Wolfgang Wagner")
graycat 11y ago
Not really. I have other things to do. The Al Gore, IPCC arguments look bad to me, just from what I wrote, that the temperature record and the CO2 record convince me that CO2 has little or nothing to do with temperature. There is a biggie point: The Al Gore crowd has a claim about CO2 that would have us shoot in the gut much of current civilization. There are at least two ways to respond: (1) From a lot of really good science, find a better answer. (2) F'get about finding a better answer or even any answer but just debunk the Al Gore answer by finding holes in its argument. Then for (2), one way is really simple, just look at the temperature and CO2 record back through the Vostok data 500,000+ years ago. I've basically done that and concluded that from the records we can reject the Gore claims about the effects of CO2 on climate. That Vostok data is what Gore gave as his main evidence that the higher temperatures were from higher concentrations of CO2. Alas, the CO2 concentrations rose about 800 years after the temperatures rose. Another way to do (2) is just to use one of the main criteria of science: Can it make accurate predictions? Well, from some of the references I gave, apparently not. That is, by the CO2, Planck black body radiation, Navier-Stokes, etc. models, the temperature should be very significantly higher now. Well, it's not. So, in science, we reject the prediction and the modelling that made it. So, as in (2), we don't find a good answer but just debunk and reject the Gore CO2 approach. Finding a good answer might be really difficult science, but debunking a proposed answer need not involve much science at all. That rejection is likely just what we are all supposed to do and maybe not publishable. So, we don't look for an academic record of it. For the references I gave, right, they are not primary, but they do give some pointers to primary references. E.g., one of the graphs does name all the models. If that graph is all hogwash, I'd be among the first to want to have good information on that. For that graph with results of the 70 or so models, I just found a link to the graph. I have the graph on my computer from years ago, but I didn't have a link to it on the Internet (I confess -- sloppy record keeping). So, I just took a long gibberish string left over from when I downloaded the graph, pasted it into Google, and let Google give me a link to the graph. I don't know where the graph came from originally (it may say but I haven't looked at that graph in detail for years) but likely not the Web page of the URL I gave. Sorry 'bout that, but I just found a way for you to see the famous graph.
- throwaway5752 11y ago
  Who the shit cares about Al Gore? When did he become a climatologist?
  - graycat 11y ago
    Good point.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > The Al Gore, IPCC arguments look bad to me, just from what I wrote, that the temperature record and the CO2 record convince me that CO2 has little or nothing to do with temperature. You citing Al Gore is enough to prove that you don't want to learn about the actual science and that you already have a position that won't change

mistermann 11y ago

Has this other model been proven incorrect?

throwaway5752 11y ago
None of the three other articles refers to any model. The closest is Dr. Spencer. His published work been critiqued by better people than me, and is readily discoverable via search engine. I can find no record of him making predictions of future warming, just criticism of existing models over the nature of atmospheric water vapor, cloud formation, and infrared reflectivity. His claims are highly disputed (search for "Remote Sensing Wolfgang Wagner")

graycat 11y ago

Not really. I have other things to do. The Al Gore, IPCC arguments look bad to me, just from what I wrote, that the temperature record and the CO2 record convince me that CO2 has little or nothing to do with temperature. There is a biggie point: The Al Gore crowd has a claim about CO2 that would have us shoot in the gut much of current civilization. There are at least two ways to respond: (1) From a lot of really good science, find a better answer. (2) F'get about finding a better answer or even any answer but just debunk the Al Gore answer by finding holes in its argument. Then for (2), one way is really simple, just look at the temperature and CO2 record back through the Vostok data 500,000+ years ago. I've basically done that and concluded that from the records we can reject the Gore claims about the effects of CO2 on climate. That Vostok data is what Gore gave as his main evidence that the higher temperatures were from higher concentrations of CO2. Alas, the CO2 concentrations rose about 800 years after the temperatures rose. Another way to do (2) is just to use one of the main criteria of science: Can it make accurate predictions? Well, from some of the references I gave, apparently not. That is, by the CO2, Planck black body radiation, Navier-Stokes, etc. models, the temperature should be very significantly higher now. Well, it's not. So, in science, we reject the prediction and the modelling that made it. So, as in (2), we don't find a good answer but just debunk and reject the Gore CO2 approach. Finding a good answer might be really difficult science, but debunking a proposed answer need not involve much science at all. That rejection is likely just what we are all supposed to do and maybe not publishable. So, we don't look for an academic record of it. For the references I gave, right, they are not primary, but they do give some pointers to primary references. E.g., one of the graphs does name all the models. If that graph is all hogwash, I'd be among the first to want to have good information on that. For that graph with results of the 70 or so models, I just found a link to the graph. I have the graph on my computer from years ago, but I didn't have a link to it on the Internet (I confess -- sloppy record keeping). So, I just took a long gibberish string left over from when I downloaded the graph, pasted it into Google, and let Google give me a link to the graph. I don't know where the graph came from originally (it may say but I haven't looked at that graph in detail for years) but likely not the Web page of the URL I gave. Sorry 'bout that, but I just found a way for you to see the famous graph.

throwaway5752 11y ago
Who the shit cares about Al Gore? When did he become a climatologist?
- graycat 11y ago
  Good point.
Oletros 11y ago
> The Al Gore, IPCC arguments look bad to me, just from what I wrote, that the temperature record and the CO2 record convince me that CO2 has little or nothing to do with temperature. You citing Al Gore is enough to prove that you don't want to learn about the actual science and that you already have a position that won't change