Kid like Mann, et al and their data.

What an idiot. What an utter fucking contemptible cunt. You have to be a moron of the highest order to say something so easily shown to be wrong.

Here is one example of a paper comparing models and observations.

Now how about you fuck off and don’t come back until you’ve learned not to make utterly basic errors of fact.

“****”If climate ’scientists’ were actually practicing SCIENCE, they’d be comparing measured trends in temperatures, humidity, precipitation, etc against their models”

This is exactly what they are doing. I suspect you know this but do not want to admit it. ”

They do this, HOWEVER, they do not write about it because their models never predict this correctly. It is well-known that their models are very poor predictors of clouds in particular and like-wise humidity, precipitation, etc. This is one of the largest issues with using GCM’s as they are today.

Now, don’t take this as meaning their models are junk, I think we can learn a lot from the models they are turning out. Just think of the options open to Statistics 101 classes around the country. I mean, in 20 years this will be required reading on what not to do in statistics and data-mining/modeling.

Shrug, I know, a cheap shot, but what can I say? I am cheap…

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

Is this even remotely true??

climate skepticism, sincere or denialist, has existed for ages before climategate.

His logic is poor sometimes and he fails to do his homework but preaching to the choir is boring. I find myself checking a fact or two sometimes because Waldo might peer review me.

That is the problem with CAGW, not enough skeptics to “hold their feet to the fire”. They have gotten away with sloppy reasoning because they knew no skeptic would peer review them, as climategate has proven.

Cheers

Nope, your wrong. Only here and places like here, ADiff, is that position accepted. AGW is still a viable science where it counts. And if this blog posits the reasons that DAGW is “wrong,” then your belief system is in trouble.

****”It’s typical that this observation by Warren is answered by DAGW disciples with insubstantial rhetoric”

Are you seriously going to look at the posting at the top of this page and call it ‘substantial rhetoric’? Even an “observation” is an overstatement. How about “poorly done agitprop”? There is almost no ‘substantial rhetoric’ on this blog. Nor is there very much science. What Mr. Meyer generally posts is pathetically one-sided exaggerations from dubious sources for credulous tribal members who all think alike.

****”If climate ‘scientists’ were actually practicing SCIENCE, they’d be comparing measured trends in temperatures, humidity, precipitation, etc against their models”

This is exactly what they are doing. I suspect you know this but do not want to admit it.

****”They wouldn’t be making VALUE judgments, telling us all how to run our lives.”

I was unaware that anyone was telling you how to run your life. This is a typical defense exaggeration of the denialist tribe. Should we go to Hansen’s website and see these “VALUE judgments”? Or perhaps, if scientists advising us on how to solve a problem of science is the imposition of VALUE, we shouldn’t listen to scientists who tell us to stop smoking, eat right, exercise now and again, avoid smog, etc. Or perhaps these people are also making “VALUE judgments”?

****”I like this site. Even Waldo. Keep up the good work.”

Thank you, kdk33, clearly you know what you are posting about, particularly your “factuals” which you no doubt investigated fairly and thoroughly – no bias there.

I will keep up the good work but I will leave you in peace for a week or so, so you may congratulate each other on your clear thinking and your repeated challenges to science (without actually using any science) from the safety of the blogosphere.

Cheers.