Direct measurement of CO2 effect:

Originally posted by humy
That climate model is already proved it can correctly predict by correctly predicting the past event.

How many times did it take them to get it right?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
How many times did it take them to get it right?

You prove to us, time after time, that you don't understand methodology of science.
Why do you continue to try to debate scientific matters if you don't know the fundamentals of this methodology?

If you humbly ask for information from those who know more than you do, then you will have all the answers you want and more. But if you constantly challenge the answers, then you will have none.

Curiosity is fine, but you show no curiosity.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
How many times did it take them to get it right?

What the hell has "How many times" got to do with it? Why would it matter? Say it was 'one trillion' times (extremely unlikely ). So it took a trillion times to get the model/theory right. So it was presumably necessary to adapt it a trillion times to get it just right so what is wrong with doing that a trillion times? If it was necessary to do that a trillion times, then good science and scientists SHOULD do it a trillion times and that is just the way good science works and any bad science doesn't. It takes whatever number of times it takes to get it right.

...And now they have got it right so what is your complaint?

Originally posted by humy
What the hell has "How many times" got to do with it? Why would it matter? Say it was 'one trillion' times (extremely unlikely ). So it took a trillion times to get the model/theory right. So it was presumably necessary to adapt it a trillion times to get it just right so what is wrong with doing that a trillion times? If it was necessary to do that a trillion ...[text shortened]... times it takes to get it right.

...And now they have got it right so what is your complaint?

WOW! You are incredibly stupid!

Do you really think that predicting the past a trillion times before you finally get it right will result in correct predictions in the future? How can anybody be that stupid? That has been done before only for climate models to fail to predict future temps. Now you suggest doing the same thing and expect different results, Einstein's definition of insanity.

Eventually another prediction (a real prediction) of temps in the future will be tested. Are you ready for another failure?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
WOW! You are incredibly stupid!

Oh, that was quite a personal attack right in the face.

You are trolling, and nothng more? When your arguments have run out, the next step is personal attack, is that it?

Just relax, this is a debate, not a boxing match.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, that was quite a personal attack right in the face.

You are trolling, and nothng more? When your arguments have run out, the next step is personal attack, is that it?

Just relax, this is a debate, not a boxing match.

You obviously have not been following these threads for very long. Humy has been insulting me for a very long time because he is frustrated that climate models are not reliable like he once thought.

Just so you know, I didn't insult him first. Even he will not deny that. There are too many people that know that to be true on here.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You obviously have not been following these threads for very long. Humy has been insulting me for a very long time because he is frustrated that climate models are not reliable like he once thought.

Just so you know, I didn't insult him first. Even he will not deny that. There are too many people that know that to be true on here.

And you accept personal attacks with no problems because you redeliver them without hesitation. In fact, you use them yourself as a part of your rhetorics.

The one who are right doesn't need to use personal attacks.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And you accept personal attacks with no problems because you redeliver them without hesitation. In fact, you use them yourself as a part of your rhetorics.

The one who are right doesn't need to use personal attacks.

I am guilty of retaliation. Sue me.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Do you really think that predicting the past a trillion times before you finally get it right will result in correct predictions in the future?

adapting the model/theory to better fit the data some arbitrary 'large' number of times has generally worked in the past. It is occasionally part of something called "science". That is just how good science works.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I am guilty of retaliation. Sue me.

Don't have to, you've already admitted your guilt.

Originally posted by humy
adapting the model/theory to better fit the data some arbitrary 'large' number of times has generally worked in the past. It is occasionally part of something called "science". That is just how good science works.

Then why do climate models fail to past (reverse) predict the ice age?


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Don't have to, you've already admitted your guilt.

I was being sarcastic. Humy is an arrogant person that is quick to resort to insults when he is losing a debate. I don't feel the least bit bad about retaliating by insulting humy. He probably understands this better than you think, but like many people he sees fit to do unto others without accepting the same treatment himself. That is why I called him a hypocrite on at least one occasion.
Retaliation is generally human nature and you are no exception. If you want to lecture people about retaliation go to Israel to do it and see how people treat you. After 911 did you lecture people against retaliation? I think you are just as likely to retaliate in the same way I did. Nobody buys into your crap that retaliation should be shunned upon.

I didn't cast the first stone. Don't expect me to feel bad.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Humy is an arrogant person

Then what does that make you? -always thinking you know the science better than all us science experts.
Even I don't even pretend to begin to know better than the scientists on things that are outside my areas of expertise and yet I (and nearly everybody else here ) understands science far better than you.
For example, which non-expert in relativity was it that arrogantly thought he had a better theory or understanding of relativity than the real experts on it? Certainly not me! I would never think this and yet I know more about it than you! It was you with this "time dilution is/causes (whatever ) gravity" nonsense.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I was being sarcastic.
...
I didn't cast the first stone. Don't expect me to feel bad.

So you lied, you are a liar. Okay.

Children say "It wasn't me, I am without guilt, he did it first!"
Adults say "I didn't like what he did, so I don't do that."

You accept others to do things when you do the same yourself. Don't whine. Grow up.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So you lied, you are a liar. Okay.

Children say "It wasn't me, I am without guilt, he did it first!"
Adults say "I didn't like what he did, so I don't do that."

You accept others to do things when you do the same yourself. Don't whine. Grow up.

What lie? What did I lie about?