Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Climate

Climate Change: How to Lie without appearing to Lie

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s almost 40 years of climate models, starting in 1971–when “Global Cooling” was feared, to the Hansen models in the 1980’s, the first in 1981 and the second in 1988, and the last ones by the IPCC, Assessment Reports (AR) from the 1990’s to about 2010.

Notice that the decadal rate of temperature increase remains almost the SAME for the entire 40 year period! And notice how the early models–mostly in the 1970’s when ‘cooling’ was in vogue, are very close to actuals. It’s only when super-duper “climate change models” were devised in the 90’s and later on that the sizable deviations occur.

So, here’s the ‘lie’: these authors claim that climate change models actually stack up quite well to actual temperatures, when, in fact, this is only true because they’ve used very simple models from the 70’s to average out the much larger errors that the super-duper “climate models” are showing. “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!” And this is statistical averaging and a big lie!

But, theres MORE:

Here’s a quote from the Phys.Org press release:

Climate models are based on two main assumptions. One is the physics of the atmosphere and how it reacts to heat-trapping gases. The other is the amount of greenhouse gases put into the air.

A few times, scientists were wrong in their predictions about the growth of carbon pollution, saying there would be more of the gases than there actually were, Hausfather said. If they got the amount of heat-trapping gases wrong, they then got the temperatures wrong.

So Hausfather and colleagues, including NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, looked at how well the models did on just the pure science, taking out the emissions factor. On that count, 14 of the 17 computer models accurately predicted the future.

So, if LEAVE OUT the amount of “Greenhouse Gases,” then models become accurate. So, what’s the point of the models, then? What a mockery of science this represents!!

Comments
Barry
When UB and EG agree, it is noteworthy. The two of you should follows UB’s suggestion. Only warning.
I respect the warning and will stop my little experiment of feeding back to ET the same language and abuse that he uses against those he disagrees with. His reaction to being treated as he treats others has made my point and has been very educational, as well as being hilarious. :)Reapers Plague
December 10, 2019
December
12
Dec
10
10
2019
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
When UB and EG agree, it is noteworthy. The two of you should follows UB's suggestion. Only warning.Barry Arrington
December 10, 2019
December
12
Dec
10
10
2019
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
So if Seversky can try to use his brain for a moment... It's clearly stated in the article that this is part of a marketing campaign. And what do marketing campaigns do? Try to sell product with excited verbiage and vivid images. But get this, Sev, it's easy to make stuff up about your product and put it in a marketing campaign. In fact, the most important thing is to sell, not be 100% factual. Get it? Andrewasauber
December 10, 2019
December
12
Dec
10
10
2019
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
"Imbie's Greenland analysis is published in the journal Nature. Its release has been timed to coincide with the annual COP climate convention taking place this year in Madrid, and with the American Geophysical Union meeting here in San Francisco, where leading Earth scientists have gathered." Hype for the Big Conferences. We've seen this before. Countless times. Same ol' Chicken Littleism. Andrewasauber
December 10, 2019
December
12
Dec
10
10
2019
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Soot, seversky. It isn't the ambient temperature that is causing the ice to melt. “For the decade 2010-2019, the satellite temperatures averaged only 0.15 C higher than in the previous decade (1990-1999). That’s less than a third of a degree F, which no one would even notice over 10 years.”- Dr Roy Spencer So what was it- 0.10C below freezing>?ET
December 10, 2019
December
12
Dec
10
10
2019
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
"I suppose this is all a lie too Climate change: Greenland ice melt ‘is accelerating’" Seversky, Yes. It is. Greenland really isn't red around the edges, you dolt. Andrewasauber
December 10, 2019
December
12
Dec
10
10
2019
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
I suppose this is all a lie too Climate change: Greenland ice melt 'is accelerating' Seversky
December 10, 2019
December
12
Dec
10
10
2019
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
All I can say is that Reaper's first comment in this thread was an attack on me and an attempt at an insult. That is all Reaper does. From there it deteriorated with Reaper never supporting its claims and poo-poo'ing the support for my claims. Reaper attacks the messenger because it cannot deal with the math and science. Its false analogies prove it does not belong in a civil discussion.ET
December 10, 2019
December
12
Dec
10
10
2019
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
UB @ 108 - I agree with you (and Ed George).Bob O'H
December 10, 2019
December
12
Dec
10
10
2019
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
Reaper, like Eddie, is just upset because I have supported my claims and exposed them as substance-free insipid trolls. Let's not forget they are both immoral quote-miners. They have to attack me to try to get me banned because they definitely cannot produce any science nor evidentiary support for the trope they post. And they can't have me exposing them for that.ET
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
UB
Why don’t both of you do the planet a service and STFU.
Although you and I almost always disagree with each other, this is an instance where I have to agree with you. Both ET and RP are acting like spoiled little brats. The sooner the moderators step in, the better.Ed George
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
Yes, please check it out. I will provide a few examples of ET’s behavior:
LoL! timmy smooched the pooch and now lies like a bitch. I never made that claim, assface
Coming from a ignorant ass who thinks that 'blind watchmaker evolution' is a strawman, that's hilarious
But YOU are my ignorant ass, timmy.
I said Occam argues like a little faggot infant. I said that because you do. I supported my claim.
And fuck your cowardly equivocation. with respect to "natural".
You are a retard.
Look, just because YOU are an ignorant asshole, that doesn't mean I am equivocating over the definition of the word "code". YOU cannot show that I am equivocating. YOU are a piece-of-shit ignorant asshole
Because you are a moron how does that have any affect on me?
And that is only a sampling from the last 3 of the 852 pages of similar vulgarity. If UD is proud of this guy and continues to protect him, then I and all other atheists are fine with it. In fact, we strongly support your position. :)Reapers Plague
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
. Why don't both of you do the planet a service and STFU. Please. Pretty Please.Upright BiPed
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
And how did Reaper know what website that I meant by the swamp? It's as if reaper is Occam's aftershave/ thorton/ adapa/ ghostrider- the most vile and scientifically illiterate, insipid troll on the internet Just sayinET
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Yes, please check it out the thread on UD- they have 5 of them and Reaper is a huge contributor as Occam's afterbirth UD at the swampET
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
Chubs, I just noticed that occam’s Aftershave is currently posting over at the “swamp”. You know that site. The place that has a dedicated thread for you. A thread that is now into its 852nd page because of your active participation. I strongly recommend that your UD friends check it out. To see how Well you represent ID over there. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=5def138c347a5777;act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=25530Reapers Plague
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
. #98 I hear ya. All the "critics" on this site lately refuse to engage in earnest fulfilled predictions, famous experimental results, or the well-documented history of biology.Upright BiPed
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
The context of your posts that I was responding to. I challenge anyone to read your spewage over @ the swamp and come away thinking differently.
And, more importantly, how UD can continue to allow you to comment here knowing that this is how you normally behave.
LoL! timmy the hypocriteET
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Chubs, I’m still waiting to hear how the CONTEXT by which calling someone a “ little faggot infant” is justified. Or, as EG has pointed out, the times you have repeatedly called people “ass munching faggots”. And, more importantly, how UD can continue to allow you to comment here knowing that this is how you normally behave. Are you the type of person they want to associate themselves with? I think not.Reapers Plague
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Umm, unless YOU are Occam's Aftershave, ie thorton/ adapa/ ghostrider, I never said that to you. That said, given YOUR posts that I quoted 96 and 97 , what I said about YOU was an astute observation.
And explain the CONTEXT under which calling someone a “ little faggot infant” is justified?
The context of your posts that I was responding to. I challenge anyone to read your spewage over @ the swamp and come away thinking differently. The irony in Luke's post was that he obviously doesn't have the slightest clue what he is talking about. Otherwise he would have posted more than just some innuendo. And as far as I can tell it was aimed at YOU and yours.ET
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
Chubs
Does anyone else see the irony in that?
Irony? No. Astute observation? Absolutely. Or do you want to claim that I argue “like a little faggot infant” again? And explain the CONTEXT under which calling someone a “ little faggot infant” is justified?Reapers Plague
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Lukebarnes:
Dear UD, perhaps you could get contributors who have the slightest clue what they’re talking about.
Does anyone else see the irony in that? :DET
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Dear UD, perhaps you could get contributors who have the slightest clue what they're talking about.lukebarnes
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
How does reaper feel about UD?
I gotta believe the clock is ticking on UD and its remaining handful of ignorant yet arrogant nutters. Barry probably has his hand on the plug ready to pull at any time.
and one of reaper's more intelligent responses:
Joke must be fondly remembering all those anal probes he received over the years. HINT: Those weren't space aliens Joe, just your pals Bubba and Leroy at the county jail.
THAT is the vile loser that is timmy hortonET
December 8, 2019
December
12
Dec
8
08
2019
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
How Reaper "argues"
Joke the dumbfuck regurgitates a 2012 claim from another wingnut AGW denier blog. No published science, just the usual woo and bullshit Joke swallows by the shovelful. Seems Joke likes the taste.
and
Posting horseshit from non-peer-reviewed science-free AGW denier websites doesn't mean anything Joke, except maybe being evidence for how stupid and scientifically ignorant you are. But everyone already knows that you blubbering dumbass.
That is the extent of its scientific prowess.ET
December 8, 2019
December
12
Dec
8
08
2019
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
LoL! timmy Horton is too stupid to understand the math and science so it attacks me. How much of a lowlife punk are you, timmy?
But simply saying that CO2 only absorbs at one wavelength and is therefore not significant is just simply not science.
True, the science says CO2 is insignificant as a GHG
his is being claimed by the same guy who made the claim that Frequency = Wavelength
Actually that is a quote-mine and I supported my claimET
December 8, 2019
December
12
Dec
8
08
2019
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Arons1978@87, very reasoned comment. I think it is reasonable to expect that climate scientists have gotten some things wrong. As is the case with every field of science. But on what side of the line have they erred? Will it be worse or better than their models predict? But simply saying that CO2 only absorbs at one wavelength and is therefore not significant is just simply not science. But keep in mind, this is being claimed by the same guy who made the claim that Frequency = Wavelength, and four years later still refuses to admit an error.Reapers Plague
December 8, 2019
December
12
Dec
8
08
2019
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Me
Well, I guess his credentials are better than those of a small appliance repairman who got fired for posting threatening comments from a company computer, the world’s dumbest YEC and all-time lowlife loser.
ET’s response
You "argue" like a little faggot infant. Just calling it "anti-science garbage" doesn't mean anything, you ignorant coward.
Need I say more?Reapers Plague
December 8, 2019
December
12
Dec
8
08
2019
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
seversky- nothing of what you posted contains any science to support it. You may as well post astrology chartsET
December 8, 2019
December
12
Dec
8
08
2019
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
Earth to Bob @ 88- It proves that the models are a joke. But I understand why you would want to ignore thatET
December 8, 2019
December
12
Dec
8
08
2019
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply