If you did know, then, they wouldn’t have worked on you, right?
No, not *any *model. Be serious. The ones that work, work - just as you say. So on what basis do you deny what they tell you?
A clear enough argument there, albeit somewhat lacking in the convincing department. Perhaps you could do a bit better than that?
The BadAstronomy guy has an article this week, which notes how certain “news” organizations craft misleading headlines. In this case the Financial Post titled an article “New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans”, when the study actually found the exact opposite.
I knew you were gonna say that.
There are no campaign slike that where I live, on the contrary, most is eco-babbling about how the end being nigh.
My evidence is very simple.
If CO2 is the main driver in GW and we assign very different climate sensitivities we cannot reach the same results; if then aerosols behave in such a way that they compensate the differences, without any evidence that they should, it makes you wonder.
A clear enough argument there, albeit somewhat lacking in the convincing department. Perhaps you could do a bit better than that?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I could.
So, we have to beg? Or what?
No, begging please.
Let’s start easy. One direct question and I give a direct answer.
First thing I wonder is what the hell that desperately complicated sentence means. I could think maybe you’re saying that the degradation of the ozone layer by aerosol sprays compensate for the heat-trapping properties of CO two. But then I would have to think you’re barking mad.
TL:DR Huh? Wha?
Your desperation to not dealing with evidence shows. I enjoy your whining. 
Besides showing that skeptical scientists use computer models (what? you really thought skeptical climatologists would stop using them just because clueless guys tell them that they are not useful?) what I got from that bit of news was that Spencer is going off the deep end by clearly assuming that it was standard procedure that one could tweak the models to get what you wanted. It does not work that way.
What one has to realize here (and looking at the resignation of the editor of the journal that accepted that flawed paper) is that it would take some effort but skeptics that know that stuff should be able to find evidence that a model was used improperly. If the critics of the researchers using models were correct on how most researchers use their models, then we should had seen already dozens of papers and researchers shamed like in the case of Spencer.
But we don’t.
Instead what I see is that the ones launching the accusations are the ones that are discredited because their criticism was ideologically driven on top of flawed.
There was actually an “easter egg” in the quote and you demonstrated to all how deftly you are at avoiding reading cites.
So a couple of things there, The Heartland Institute was and continues to be involved on efforts to defend the Tobacco industry and there are one of the merchants of doubt.
Forbes has relied on people from that think tank and together with other deniers it is spreading misinformation, Forbes is indeed a capitalist fool nowadays and you used them also as your “reliable citations”
What the hell are you doing GIGO? THIS IS A PITTING. You do not have to debate them. Just tell them to go fuck themselves if you want to. You have already proved sufficiently to the vast majority of posters here that you are correct. The ones that are left are just denialists: no matter what you say, they will never believe you!
Great job on keeping your cool though. And on finding massive piles of cites.
Thanks for that.
Oh don’t worry, it is a pleasure to point at their dumbness and at the same time have the freedom to tell them to be fruitful and multiply with themselves in my own way.
And that’s a real crowd pleaser, GIGO, but maybe next time, after you cram a copy of the Journal of Clilmatological Science down the throat of the Masked Denier, you just pick up a folding chair…
Concur.
BTW, where do I sign up to GIGO’s fan club?
“Ceci n’est pas une pipe”
OK, I’ll rephrase using invented examples:
MY point is that the models give no reason why the aerosols (or their production) would behave differently or change their quantity to the exact point that the model replicates reality.
As an aside, aerosols are very localised compared to the mostly even distribution of CO2, so a local effect would have to be massive so that the global average is affected.
[invented and simplistic example] If high aersol concentrations are found in 10% of the earth surface, and they cause a 3 degree decrease in global temperature, they must casue a 30 degree decease in the local areas so that the average would get to 3 [/invented and simplistic example]
I can, of course, be reading it all wrong.
Nice to see that you clutch to the whole “it’s a denier” and “it’s been debunked” thingylike your doing it for your life.
You only, apparently, look at the url of my cite and maybe the author and then go the mum and dad at realclimate to find your answer. You never seem to address specific issues.
Intead of, for instance, answering any of the points raised by the Forbes article (which can be the largest piece of crap in the universe) your answer is simply the ad hominem “Forbes has relied on people from that think tank and together with other deniers it is spreading misinformation”, which may very well be true, but still you run away from giving real answers.
Since you have shown not even a feigned interest in reading and debating my cite, I will do the same with yours, i.e. not give a fuck about them.
Call it whining if it helps you sleep through the night and promiotes pleasurable evacuation of your bowels.
You are pretending to a parity that does not exist. He’s got buttloads of valid citation, simply calling them “his” cites and dismissing them because he dismisses “yours” doesn’t get it.
Oh, and what GIGO said.
Indeed. The more naive part of me, which simply refuses to go away for some reason, wonders why people just double down on the rhetoric after they’ve been pitted-in fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single Pitting where the Pittee (heh) ever says, “Sorry guys, my bad, I was an ass/wrong, won’t ever happen again, and I apologize to those I may have offended.” To said naive self, that is quite astonishing. 500 quatloos to the person who can find such sincere honesty, repentance, and humility on the part of a Pittee (serious about that-well not the quatloo part).
You can always send him a friend request. 
The Ají de Gallina is missing the Aji.
Yes, that is the case, you would think he had learned that dopers frown on links with no explanation or a quote from them, but the Gallina here just wants me to do his homework, as it turns out he also has not learned yet that I do look at the cites before dismissing them. The overall tenor of the cites is clear, that scientists are wrong and not using models properly, as pointed before then the McExperts should just denounce a few of the most likely researchers that are guilty of this and demonstrate with evidence how off the mark their models and conclusions are.
But then another overall item can be noticed, they never got specific on what researcher, published paper or journal the mistakes are so they could shame the bad research. And then, after all their “efforts”, there is no mention of the McExperts going to publish their findings to see if their peers would agree.
No, what they do is to just show their “results” on blogs and claim that they are doing science, that is precisely what pseudoscience does, avoid the glare of the reviewers and as the Spencer case showed, they have a very good reason why they do not confront the research itself.
Gavin Smith did took on Meyer’s antics before:
So, Gigo is unwilling to accept the bald assertion that the reports of global temperature show that global warming stopped in 1998. That’s good science, since a single decade is a trivial data set for a global temperature trends, and temperature is only one aspect of the very complex interactions of atmosphere, sea, land and insolation in a planetary system. Good for him.
However, he could just as easily simply rejected the absurd claim because it is innacurate. It is not the truth. It might be screaming knuckle dragging stupidity, but the amount of actual stupidity needed makes deliberate dishonesty a much more likely reason.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ and additional reports linked there.
Tris
That’s what NASA said. Here’s what the UN said, with statistics based on data sets maintained by NASA and HadCRU and the NCDC – namely, that there’s “no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998 … The difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data.”
Your cite. Missed that part, did you?
(Get some coffee, GIGO, I got this one…)
No, I cited it in reply to Tris’ specific point – and the cited facts serve that purpose to my satisfaction. My primary concern is the falsifiability of claims; the cited facts interest me to that extent; unsurprisingly, the cited conclusions likewise interest me to the extent that they likewise involve falsifiable claims.