tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post1466307698063857224..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18975715537979570072008-08-05T12:19:00.000-04:002008-08-05T12:19:00.000-04:00Eli, just wanted to stop by and thank you for your...Eli, just wanted to stop by and thank you for your support on RealClimate. TenneyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4204848327669345762008-08-05T10:33:00.000-04:002008-08-05T10:33:00.000-04:00Fortunately for us, wingnuts like anon don't get a...Fortunately for us, wingnuts like anon don't get access to decision-makers to spread their wingnuttiness. If they did, however, <A HREF="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8524070301101240472&postID=7471632685723861112" REL="nofollow">something like this</A> would result (August 4, 2008 7:18 AM )<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78274449779253212002008-08-05T03:01:00.000-04:002008-08-05T03:01:00.000-04:00Oh Woe. I now realise that Schmidt and the IPCC ha...Oh Woe. I now realise that Schmidt and the IPCC have made clear that their Models are not that good and are imperfect, but nevertheless, the IPCC say we should abandon our sinful CO2 based lifestyle, or we are all going to fry? That's the Public perception provoked, encouraged, and allowed, by Schmidt and Hansen et al.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69383812506414526412008-08-04T09:29:00.000-04:002008-08-04T09:29:00.000-04:00anonymous,"Hint: Gavin Schmidt points out that his...anonymous,<BR/><BR/>"Hint: Gavin Schmidt points out that his models are really great and perfect."<BR/><BR/>Lying doesn't really help your credibility.<BR/><BR/>Gavin talks all the time about model error. Google RealClimate for "gavin" and "model error" or "model uncertainty". For instance, see the article "What the IPCC models really say".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32866039015394155822008-08-04T00:28:00.000-04:002008-08-04T00:28:00.000-04:00"And now the IPCC projection is a `straw man'?"So ..."And now the IPCC projection is a `straw man'?"<BR/><BR/>So what Lucia claims to be "IPCC prediction" isn't a straw man because Anonymous says it's the "IPCC prediction"!<BR/><BR/>Inactivist `logic' gets more and more fractal each passing moment.bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71420207938818966262008-08-04T00:26:00.000-04:002008-08-04T00:26:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89365437530191327292008-08-03T17:26:00.000-04:002008-08-03T17:26:00.000-04:00Hint: Gavin Schmidt points out that his models are...Hint: Gavin Schmidt points out that his models are really great and perfect. The end. Well that's that sorted then. And now the IPCC projection is a "straw man"? Yes it really is the Wizard of Oz show.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90233345538290942052008-08-03T13:48:00.000-04:002008-08-03T13:48:00.000-04:00I already told MarkeyMouse that he really should s...I already told MarkeyMouse that he really should see a doctor about his apocalyptic visions of a Phantom Soviet Empire. Perhaps with his tinfoil hat on. But he just won't listen to my advice.<BR/><BR/>By the way, MarkeyMouse, that pattern on that cereal flake isn't a hammer-and-sickle symbol.bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-24225917184041952392008-08-03T12:58:00.000-04:002008-08-03T12:58:00.000-04:00MarkeyMouse says:Lucia has shown definatively and ...MarkeyMouse says:<BR/><BR/><I>Lucia has shown definatively and statistically that the "IPCC near term prediction of 2C/century for the trend appears provisionally falsified. I use the weasel term ‘provisionally’ because everything in science is provisional. If the data are found erroneous, or GMST suddenly rockets up next year, or the next year, or sometime in the next decade, then the IPCC projections could turn out to be right.</I><BR/><BR/>Wow. Is "definativley" anything like "definitively."?<BR/><BR/>Or is it more like "provisionally"? (the word Lucia "now" uses -- she seems less sure/more careful than she originally was in her claims)<BR/><BR/>So, what exactly is this nebulous "IPCC near term prediction of 2C/century" that she claims to have "provisionally falsified"?<BR/><BR/>Lucia has basically created a straw man "IPCC projection" to "knock down" with her "statistics".<BR/><BR/>In fact, the "2C per century trend" that she keeps referring to actually represents the mean value for a suite of model projections -- ie, not really an "IPCC prediction" [sic] at all.<BR/><BR/>To say nothing of the fact that the relevant text in the AR4 refers to "<I>about</I> 2C per century" over the first couple decades for this mean value.<BR/><BR/>Finally, she is just confused about the uncertainty associated with model projections over the short term. <BR/><BR/>Hint: As Gavin Schmidt has pointed out, it is significantly greater than what she seems to believe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63319394122039118652008-08-03T06:15:00.000-04:002008-08-03T06:15:00.000-04:00MarkeyMouse says: Lucia has shown definatively an...MarkeyMouse says: Lucia has shown definatively and statistically that the "IPCC near term prediction of 2C/century for the trend appears provisionally falsified. I use the weasel term ‘provisionally’ because everything in science is provisional. If the data are found erroneous, or GMST suddenly rockets up next year, or the next year, or sometime in the next decade, then the IPCC projections could turn out to be right. (I would personally consider their stated confindence intervals too narrow, but, if the weather heats up, yes, they could turn out to be right.)<BR/><BR/>But, basically, the only way to make the IPCC projections to become “correct” is for the weather to heat up or the data to be found wrong." http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/the-huge-swing-07-08-does-that-affect-the-results/<BR/><BR/>Hansen's Crystal Ball machine is wrong. Don't Hansen et al remind you of the Wizard of Oz? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49845138073599661592008-08-03T01:31:00.000-04:002008-08-03T01:31:00.000-04:00China did it... China did it... China did it... Ch...China did it... China did it... China did it... China did it... China did it... China did it... China did it... China did it... Om... Om... Om...bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61199640446537879882008-08-02T22:08:00.000-04:002008-08-02T22:08:00.000-04:00Oh Rabett come now. Yes I know Hansen, Team and yo...Oh Rabett come now. Yes I know Hansen, Team and you acolytes want so badly for the world to believe you, but it just don't happen. India and China are telling you all, in the politest of ways, to get stuffed, and what they and another billion asians and subcontinent duskies also say determines the way of the world. <BR/><BR/>So you go ahead and tell your little tales of inconsequence, who you like or don't like. Receive you little pats on the back from your anons. Laughable-yes, childish-yes. <BR/><BR/>How does that arctic ice area go, Rabett. The "end is nigh" is not quite "nigh". <BR/><BR/>JohnSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com