14 Feb 17
Originally posted by humy"That is because he is qualified in both, NOT because one equate with the other."
That is because he is qualified in both, NOT because one equate with the other. No doubt there are same physicists who are also biologists, So physicists are biologists?
Show us a reliable source of information
I have already shown you the two links that explain what each is.
Show me ANY link that contradicts them....
[quote]
Sin ...[text shortened]... wiki.
But now AT LAST you admit wiki does NOT list Singer as a climate scientist; Thank you.
You are a liar! No conspiracy theory is needed. People lie simply to save face and you are the perfect example of that. Show me your source of information. I'm sure you will evade doing that again. That seems to be your preferred underhanded tactic.
14 Feb 17
7 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou have just admitted I wasn't lying by admitting wiki does NOT list Singer as a climate scientist (because he isn't one), just like I have been saying all the long while you calling me a liar for it. So now AT LAST you admit I wasn't lying and I was right and you were wrong all the long. Thank you.
You are a liar!
No conspiracy theory is needed.
So why do you resort to one? With your quote of;
"Singer's omission is likely due to some guy like you that came along and deleted his name as many people do. That is why wkipedia is widely regarded as an unreliable source of information. "
So you DO believe you need conspiracy theory; a conspiracy to make wiki say he isn't a climate scientist.
14 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrass" I have already provided evidence for the accuracy of the climate models"
I admitted his response was reasonable, yet evasive and wildly outdated. I have already provided evidence for the accuracy of the climate models, which are more detailed and accurate than they were decades ago since there's more data in them (pasted below once again). Apparently you also did not read the Marzeion et al. study where their 12 different model ...[text shortened]... bout their inability to predict seasonal droughts? Is that where your term "usually" comes from?
No, you have not. Those links make the assertion without any source of info to back it up.
You are not doing your homework. I posted several links including this one.
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/
14 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by humyYou still evade posting your imaginary source of info. You claimed Lindzen had another qualification that Singer does not and that is a lie. You are a liar!
You have just admitted I wasn't lying by admitting wiki does NOT list Singer as a climate scientist (because he isn't one), just like I have been saying all the long while you calling me a liar for it. So now AT LAST you admit I wasn't lying and I was right and you were wrong all the long. Thank you.
No conspiracy theory is needed.
So w ...[text shortened]... believe you need conspiracy theory; a conspiracy to make wiki say he isn't a climate scientist.
Prove your positive instead of asking me to prove a negative. Even the IPCC does not require real climate science credentials. You are only opening a can of worms you will not like.
Raj Pachauri, the railroad engineer who was once the chairman of the IPCC is not qualified.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/05/09/global-warming-activist-david-roberts-slams-the-qualifications-of-ipccs-top-scientists/#13cdbaf55ca4
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/readers-views/3717321-readers-view-qualifications-questionable-be-climate-scientist
Here is a link calling Singer a climate scientist:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/2/prweb9172613.htm
The burden of proof belongs on you. Prove your assertion!
14 Feb 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat?!? If I'm not mistaken this link you're referencing uses 30 year old climate PREDICTION models to say that current models are wrong? Have long have you been living in a cave?
" I have already provided evidence for the accuracy of the climate models"
No, you have not. Those links make the assertion without any source of info to back it up.
You are not doing your homework. I posted several links including this one.
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/
I provided some media links supporting climate model accuracy since I assumed they'd be easier to digest. You're being dishonest with yourself by saying there is no source of info to back it up, since both articles are clearly, obviously very well sourced throughout. I'll provide a bibliography below.
It seems to me that you're only willing to read slanted, agenda-driven blogs which allows you to ignore the evidence. Of course you can poke holes in any scientific hypotheses and shoot down studies for one caveat or another, but if you look at all the evidence (not the cherry-picked stuff from your blog), you'll see the case supporting AGW. Then you need to ask yourself how much evidence is needed to modify your position on this subject. Have you thought about that at all?
http://www.ocean-sci.net/12/925/2016/
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2915.html
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0339.1
14 Feb 17
10 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe wiki link you keep showing lists Lindzen as a climate scientists but not Singer thus clearly indicating Lindzen is qualified as a climate scientists and Singer is not. How is that a lie? My source of info is the very same wiki link you keep showing. . Yes sometimes wiki gets its facts wrong, but it gets the vast majority of its fact right unlike you who is wrong almost all the time. Thus wiki is a vastly more trustworthy source of info than you thus I trust the word of wiki over yours any day; and so does every scientist here.
you claimed Lindzen had another qualification that Singer does not and that is a lie. You are a liar!
Here is a link calling Singer a climate scientist:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/2/prweb9172613.htm
That isn't a science link but just a news report stating when and where he will give a lecture. The author is unlikely to be a scientist himself thus probably is unaware that he isn't a qualified climate science (a very easy and thus excusable layperson false assumption to make) thus that is why he erroneously stated in the title of the news report that he is a "climate scientist".
Obviously a wiki link edited by scientists about science is a far more trustworthy source of info of science related topics than just a news report merely about a lecture and authored by a none scientist.
If Singer was a qualified climate scientist, he would have been listed in that wiki link as one you keep showing. And yet he hasn't thus clearly showing he isn't. You need to give a credible explanation for that, which you haven't but instead resorted to stating an extremely stupid absurd conspiracy theory involving someone deliberately deleting that specific info out to hide it, which wouldn't hypothetically work anyway because someone else would just simply edit the facts back in.
Try again.
15 Feb 17
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-canadian-glaciers-major-contributor-sea.html
"...Ice loss from Canada's Arctic glaciers has transformed them into a major contributor to sea level change, new research by University of California, Irvine glaciologists has found.
From 2005 to 2015, surface melt off ice caps and glaciers of the Queen Elizabeth Islands grew by an astonishing 900 percent, from an average of three gigatons to 30 gigatons per year, according to results published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
"In the past decade, as air temperatures have warmed, surface melt has increased dramatically," said lead author Romain Millan, an Earth system science doctoral student.
The team found that in the past decade, overall ice mass declined markedly, turning the region into a major contributor to sea level change. Canada holds 25 percent of all Arctic ice, second only to Greenland.
..."
18 Feb 17
Originally posted by humyGreat!
The wiki link you keep showing lists Lindzen as a climate scientists but not Singer thus clearly indicating Lindzen is qualified as a climate scientists and Singer is not. How is that a lie? My source of info is the very same wiki link you keep showing. . Yes sometimes wiki gets its facts wrong, but it gets the vast majority of its fact right unlike you who is ...[text shortened]... tically work anyway because someone else would just simply edit the facts back in.
Try again.
Show me how Lindzen has better qualifications than Singer. That is the whole point, but you knew that already. Just more evasiveness from you. Be honest for a change. This is why nobody takes you left wing lunatics seriously.
18 Feb 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainInteresting you respond to Humy but not to the Wildgrass post.
Great!
Show me how Lindzen has better qualifications than Singer. That is the whole point, but you knew that already. Just more evasiveness from you. Be honest for a change. This is why nobody takes you left wing lunatics seriously.
18 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrassPredicting the past? Seriously? Are you that stupid?
What?!? If I'm not mistaken this link you're referencing uses 30 year old climate PREDICTION models to say that current models are wrong? Have long have you been living in a cave?
I provided some media links supporting climate model accuracy since I assumed they'd be easier to digest. You're being dishonest with yourself by saying there is no source of ...[text shortened]... urnal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2915.html
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0339.1
Climate models that predict the past are irrelevant to reliability. Predicting the future has to be done right the first time before testing. Predicting the past not only sounds like an oxymoron, it is the so called proof presented by morons!
I once asked humy how many times they tested model predictions of the past. He said it didn't matter. That is a good example of a leap of faith.
18 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainI don't recall saying this and I like context please. Many times climate models have predicted an increase in temperature and now we are seeing just that globally. That means climate models have made correct predictions.
I once asked humy how many times they tested model predictions of the past. He said it didn't matter. .
18 Feb 17
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainI never said one has "better" qualifications than the other.
Show me how Lindzen has better qualifications than .Singer .
Your own wiki link showed Lindzen, although both are qualified atmospheric physicists, Lindzen is a qualified climate scientist while Singer is not. Which part of that do you not understand?
18 Feb 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhere did I say that?
Predicting the past? Seriously? Are you that stupid?
Climate models that predict the past are irrelevant to reliability. Predicting the future has to be done right the first time before testing. Predicting the past not only sounds like an oxymoron, it is the so called proof presented by morons!
I once asked humy how many times they tested model predictions of the past. He said it didn't matter. That is a good example of a leap of faith.
I think you are distorting and/or not comprehending the explicit purpose of using climate models for research studies. They are not irrelevant for looking at past observations. I will repeat myself: Think about the specific questions that researchers are asking. Climate models are a mathematical tool used to simulate the effect of different "Forcing" variables on our climate. They are trying to establish the critical variables that are driving observed changes to our climate. Matching them to observations is essential.
You don't seem to be trying to answer any questions here, only debunk legitimate science using stale and irrelevant talking points.
21 Feb 17
Originally posted by humyLaughable!
I don't recall saying this and I like context please. Many times climate models have predicted an increase in temperature and now we are seeing just that globally. That means climate models have made correct predictions.
As I have pointed out many times before, we are in a warming trend that started over 300 years ago. Any moron can safely predict the trend will continue and get warmer, but predicting how much is not easy and the many failures of climate models to do that show you are wrong.
Try again.
21 Feb 17
Originally posted by humyYes you did, then you edited to omit your mistake in your typical dishonest tactics. You do that a lot because you are a liar with no honor.
I never said one has "better" qualifications than the other.
Your own wiki link showed Lindzen, although both are qualified atmospheric physicists, Lindzen is a qualified climate scientist while Singer is not. Which part of that do you not understand?
You keep lying by saying an atmospheric physicist is not a climate scientist. You once stated that only climatologists are climate scientists and that is completely false, then you edited that to omit your mistake as well.....you liar!
Prove your assertion that an atmospheric physicist is not a climate scientist as you have said. You cannot because it is not true and you know it.