Author Topic: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread  (Read 429482 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #700 on: May 16, 2014, 03:09:13 PM »
Yeah, he's just some wacko right wing denier. The science is settled!

He is sure to have more experience and knowledge than those that turned it down.

Quote
Lennart Bengtsson (born 5 July 1935, Trollhättan), is a Swedish meteorologist. His research interests include climate sensitivity, extreme events, climate variability and climate predictability. [1]

He was Head of Research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then Director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He is now a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading.

In 2005 he was awarded the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research[2] together with Prof. Ola M. Johannessen and Dr. Leonid Bobylev from the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre in Norway and Russia for the Climate and Environmental Change in the Arctic project. In 2006 he was awarded the 51st IMO prize of the World Meteorological Organization for pioneering research in numerical weather prediction.[3]

In May 2014, Bengtsson announced that he was joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate change skeptics organization. A week later Bengtsson reversed his decision to join the GWPF citing "an enormous group pressure" that "I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years." and " I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53675
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #701 on: May 16, 2014, 03:10:12 PM »
Quote
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
- The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
- The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
- Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.

A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.

I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.

Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.

 

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

Offline Jabeez

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 525
  • #Currie4USPrez
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #702 on: May 16, 2014, 03:26:19 PM »
Quote
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
- The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
- The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
- Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.

A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.

I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.

Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.

 

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

^This:
 flawed research and findings.  Could have worked on redoing some of his work (why it's peer reviewed, rather than rushed to the public) instead, he goes bitching to the media.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #703 on: May 16, 2014, 03:48:58 PM »
Quote
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
- The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
- The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
- Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.

A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.

I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.

Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.

 

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

^This:
 flawed research and findings.  Could have worked on redoing some of his work (why it's peer reviewed, rather than rushed to the public) instead, he goes bitching to the media.

It will be interesting to read the rest of the referee decisions, if they publish them.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #704 on: May 16, 2014, 07:14:11 PM »
It's funny that michigancat and jeebaz trust the scientists who can't the models right more than the guy who's study is corroborated by the climate they purport to study.

When you're hard line politically,  you're forced to take indefensible positions. Must suck
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline bubbles4ksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5488
  • Son of Pete
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #705 on: May 16, 2014, 07:24:53 PM »
It's funny that michigancat and jeebaz trust the scientists who can't the models right more than the guy who's study is corroborated by the climate they purport to study.

When you're hard line politically,  you're forced to take indefensible positions. Must suck
a fun thing about the weekends is you don't have to wait till 10 to see FSD get drunk and delusional.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #706 on: May 16, 2014, 08:29:45 PM »
It's funny that michigancat and jeebaz trust the scientists who can't the models right more than the guy who's study is corroborated by the climate they purport to study.

When you're hard line politically,  you're forced to take indefensible positions. Must suck
a fun thing about the weekends is you don't have to wait till 10 to see FSD get drunk and delusional.

It appears I get the privilege of my own ongoing peer analysis.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #707 on: May 16, 2014, 10:48:20 PM »
It's funny that michigancat and jeebaz trust the scientists who can't the models right more than the guy who's study is corroborated by the climate they purport to study.

When you're hard line politically,  you're forced to take indefensible positions. Must suck
a fun thing about the weekends is you don't have to wait till 10 to see FSD get drunk and delusional.

It appears I get the privilege of my own ongoing peer analysis.

How would retro fitting all of our power plants to burn wood effect this?

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #708 on: May 18, 2014, 12:53:36 PM »
How is Big Energy going to be able to compete with the climate scare mongers and their war chest?

$2.6 billion in Government Climate research funding, primarily driven by the "science is settled" and the "orthodoxy of global climate change discussion" pseudo-scientists. 

Nearly $1 billion in assets for the Rockefeller Foundation, over $6 Billion in assets for the Nature Conservancy and a litany of so called non-profit entities and law firms showing hundreds of millions of dollars in assets in IRS filings.

Global Climate scare mongers are a big business . . . with the Gov't spewing forth climate change research grants in the form of billions, what government cheese scientist wouldn't desire to pull up to that trough?



Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #709 on: May 18, 2014, 01:06:30 PM »
How is Big Energy going to be able to compete with the climate scare mongers and their war chest?

$2.6 billion in Government Climate research funding, primarily driven by the "science is settled" and the "orthodoxy of global climate change discussion" pseudo-scientists. 

Nearly $1 billion in assets for the Rockefeller Foundation, over $6 Billion in assets for the Nature Conservancy and a litany of so called non-profit entities and law firms showing hundreds of millions of dollars in assets in IRS filings.

Global Climate scare mongers are a big business . . . with the Gov't spewing forth climate change research grants in the form of billions, what government cheese scientist wouldn't desire to pull up to that trough?

Yep.  Definitely more money backing Big Global Climate.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #710 on: May 18, 2014, 01:56:14 PM »
Power of the pen that draws from a budget that's equal to 7 or 8 Exxon's. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #711 on: May 19, 2014, 11:43:10 AM »
Cong. Tim Huelskamp ?@CongHuelskamp  May 16
#PeerReview 2 #PeerPressure: Journal rejects climate sceptic’s research bc it was harmful to the ‘cause’ #JunkScience http://goo.gl/GE6YvV

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40472
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #712 on: May 19, 2014, 11:51:20 AM »
every dax post is like a case study in how the human cognitive process can go awry.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21335
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #713 on: May 19, 2014, 03:46:15 PM »
:lol:

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #714 on: May 19, 2014, 04:06:07 PM »
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 




Offline Jabeez

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 525
  • #Currie4USPrez
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #715 on: May 19, 2014, 04:20:34 PM »
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 

This has to do with the climate change how?

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #716 on: May 19, 2014, 05:06:53 PM »
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 

This has to do with the climate change how?

Follow the tax money.

Offline Jabeez

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 525
  • #Currie4USPrez
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #717 on: May 19, 2014, 05:16:01 PM »
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 

This has to do with the climate change how?

Follow the tax money.

Ohhh I forgot, sheeple believe correlation is causation.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk


Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #718 on: May 19, 2014, 06:10:04 PM »
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 

This has to do with the climate change how?

Follow the tax money.

correlation is causation.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Yes, but not in the way you think.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #719 on: May 19, 2014, 07:36:26 PM »
Yes.  I am clearly demonstrating a sheeple mindset.

The Rockefeller Foundations (for example) funneling of monies to anti carbon energy development campaigns  is fact.  I don't even see where correlation/causation even comes into play unless you want to assert that to the entirety of the who is funding who debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline bubbles4ksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5488
  • Son of Pete
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #720 on: May 20, 2014, 12:13:23 AM »
The Rockefellers have always been anti-carbon energy, fwiw. Good catch, Dax.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #721 on: May 20, 2014, 09:16:55 AM »
The Rockefellers have always been anti

-carbon energy, fwiw. Good catch, Dax.

You should go rummage around in the trash can for that throwaway comment.

It doesn't matter what they once were (the irony is noted though), it matters what their foundation is now.   Thing is, they got there's on the back of carbon energy.  Now their foundation works to try and make sure nobody else can.   

Offline Jabeez

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 525
  • #Currie4USPrez
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #722 on: May 20, 2014, 09:28:18 AM »
Yes.  I am clearly demonstrating a sheeple mindset.

The Rockefeller Foundations (for example) funneling of monies to anti carbon energy development campaigns  is fact.  I don't even see where correlation/causation even comes into play unless you want to assert that to the entirety of the who is funding who debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a similar argument one could make,  using funding as an argument for why something happens, "Research that is against climate change is paid for by organizations which are in turn funded by large contributors of green house gasses.  Therefore, climate change is real." 

Quote
The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave climate skeptic Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Soon has stated that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research".[87] The foundation helped finance a 2007 analysis suggesting that climate change was not a threat to the survival of polar bears,[88] which was questioned by other researchers.[89] The foundation also funded a $150,000 study by UC Berkeley physicist Richard A. Muller who initially concluded that global warming data was flawed, but later reversed his views, supporting scientific consensus.[90][91]         
Quote

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

My entire point is your logic is totally flawed.  Foundations funding research about climate change doesnt prove anything outside of, foundations fund research about  global warming.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk


Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #723 on: May 20, 2014, 10:49:50 AM »
You're missing the entire point.

Big Green has attempted to paint this false picture that it's just a bunch of pine cone eaters in shacks going up against Big Bad Oil.

In reality, it's well heeled multi-million/billion dollar enterprises, with the backing of a Federal Gov't who is funneling billions towards group think warmist psuedo-scientists worshiping at the alter of Global Climate Change Orthodoxy.

On a somewhat related note:  Someone in another forum mentioned what some have mentioned on here regarding a region of our country that includes Western Kansas.   There's a very strong possibility that we, for lack of better words, lucked out in the last few hundred years in that we caught the Western Kansas, Eastern Colorado, and Panhandle regions of Texas and Oklahoma and parts of New Mexico in a period of relative moisture surplus (for lack of  better words) and now that region of our country is reverting back to its relative normal state when traced back in the timeline of Earth history, or at least the timeline of this current phase of Earth history and climate. 




Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #724 on: May 20, 2014, 11:30:29 AM »
Yes.  I am clearly demonstrating a sheeple mindset.

The Rockefeller Foundations (for example) funneling of monies to anti carbon energy development campaigns  is fact.  I don't even see where correlation/causation even comes into play unless you want to assert that to the entirety of the who is funding who debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a similar argument one could make,  using funding as an argument for why something happens, "Research that is against climate change is paid for by organizations which are in turn funded by large contributors of green house gasses.  Therefore, climate change is real." 

Quote
The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave climate skeptic Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Soon has stated that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research".[87] The foundation helped finance a 2007 analysis suggesting that climate change was not a threat to the survival of polar bears,[88] which was questioned by other researchers.[89] The foundation also funded a $150,000 study by UC Berkeley physicist Richard A. Muller who initially concluded that global warming data was flawed, but later reversed his views, supporting scientific consensus.[90][91]         
Quote

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

My entire point is your logic is totally flawed.  Foundations funding research about climate change doesnt prove anything outside of, foundations fund research about  global warming.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

 :confused:

Quote from: Wikipedia
The page "Political activities of George Soros" does not exist