Maunder minimum

Originally posted by @metal-brain
10% of what for how long?

Sonhouse provided that answer because you asked what percentage would be acceptable. For some reason, without any supporting data, you're saying that climate models are NOT accurate. Why are you saying that?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Your analogy man. Pharmaceutical companies routinely spend billions of dollars on drug development for "unconfirmed hypotheses" even though they (obviously) don't know if they will work. Some of these drugs only extend lifespan by a few weeks over a 5-year survival study, but that is worth it for drug companies and patients.

We're not talking about killing off mankind. We're looking for solutions to extend the lifespan of our current climate.

So your position is that the climate is dying?
You really are a left wing extremist. Are you friends with Ted Kacznski?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Sonhouse provided that answer because you asked what percentage would be acceptable. For some reason, without any supporting data, you're saying that climate models are NOT accurate. Why are you saying that?

For some reason, without any supporting data you are saying that climate models are accurate. Why are you saying that?

I gave you supporting data. Remember?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
For some reason, without any supporting data you are saying that climate models are accurate. Why are you saying that?

I gave you supporting data. Remember?

Why are you backtracking now? You are moving the goalpost over a simple question, what percentage of accuracy would you accept, that is what you asked. I said +/- 10% would be nice but you are equivocating because you just don't want to answer back that simple question.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Why are you backtracking now? You are moving the goalpost over a simple question, what percentage of accuracy would you accept, that is what you asked. I said +/- 10% would be nice but you are equivocating because you just don't want to answer back that simple question.

Backtracking? You are fooling yourself.

10% of what? I already made a flawless point that a number means nothing in this context when 1 year and 10 years of 10% are very different. Then there is the data. What kind? It had better be satellite temps and not airport temps. All of these factors make your number irrelevant. Only an idiot would agree to 10% when you would just cherry pick short term predictions. Would you be okay with me cherry picking long term predictions and holding you to that 10%?

I said asking for a number alone is stupid and it is. It is amazing you didn't realize that immediately. Besides, 10% is too high except for very long term predictions. Getting something we could both agree on would take way too long. It is a waste of time since we may never reach an agreement anyway.

Backtracking my ass! Take a reality pill.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
So your position is that the climate is dying?
You really are a left wing extremist. Are you friends with Ted Kacznski?

The climate is changing in measurable and predictable ways. Should we take action to mitigate those changes?

You made a good point with your analogy that smart people understand the uncertainty involved in making predictions about human health. But those same smart people also make huge financial investments in what they consider to be a promising approach to fix important problems. That's why your analogy was a good one.

p.s. no I am not friends with Ted Kacznski.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Backtracking? You are fooling yourself.

10% of what? I already made a flawless point that a number means nothing in this context when 1 year and 10 years of 10% are very different. Then there is the data. What kind? It had better be satellite temps and not airport temps. All of these factors make your number irrelevant. Only an idiot would agree to 1 ...[text shortened]... time since we may never reach an agreement anyway.

Backtracking my ass! Take a reality pill.

Of course 10% of what. But when you ask a vague question, you get a vague answer. Then it seems like you have to backtrack and ask a different question.

Did you ask the question "Do you know what level of accuracy is acceptable to you?" knowing that the answer would be meaningless and uninterpretable, just so you could make your "flawless" point that the number that you asked for means nothing.

Ask better questions, and you'll get better answers.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I gave you supporting data. Remember?

No.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Of course 10% of what. But when you ask a vague question, you get a vague answer. Then it seems like you have to backtrack and ask a different question.

Did you ask the question "Do you know what level of accuracy is acceptable to you?" knowing that the answer would be meaningless and uninterpretable, just so you could make your "flawless" point that ...[text shortened]... number that you asked for means nothing.

Ask better questions, and you'll get better answers.

I was asked a stupid question so I asked the same stupid question to point out just how stupid it was. I actually didn't expect an answer because I figured it would become apparent to all just how monumentally stupid it was.

No backtracking at all. Another stupid claim.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
No.

You should. You acknowledged it was data. Selective memory loss?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
The climate is changing in measurable and predictable ways. Should we take action to mitigate those changes?

You made a good point with your analogy that smart people understand the uncertainty involved in making predictions about human health. But those same smart people also make huge financial investments in what they consider to be a promising appr ...[text shortened]... problems. That's why your analogy was a good one.

p.s. no I am not friends with Ted Kacznski.

"The climate is changing in measurable and predictable ways."

The climate always changes. We are in a warming trend that started over 300 years ago. That is predictable because that warming trend has not stopped. That trend started from natural causes and continues. Proving man is increasing that warming in a significant way is something you have not done despite your best efforts, yet you still cling to a very extremist bias that the climate is dying. The climate cannot die. Your assertion that the climate somehow has a limited lifespan is absurd.
You are using a very flawed logic much like Ted Kaczynski did. I don't think you are capable of unbiased logic in regards to this issue. You have been influenced a great deal by politics rather than science. For that reason I think your view on this matter belongs in the spirituality forum. Science doesn't matter to you, just faith.

You continue to debate in circles because of your faith. I see no reason to continue this debate with you. It is no longer productive.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You should. You acknowledged it was data. Selective memory loss?

I remember you presented an unpublished graph from Roy Spencer with no figure legend or statistics or even an explanation of methods. That one hardly deserved any critical thought.

There was another unpublished study by the Cato Institute right? Since it represents the evidence you used to form your conclusion, can you post what their acceptable level of accuracy was and how they determined that models were not accurate? That would be a good starting point.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I remember you presented an unpublished graph from Roy Spencer with no figure legend or statistics or even an explanation of methods. That one hardly deserved any critical thought.

There was another unpublished study by the Cato Institute right? Since it represents the evidence you used to form your conclusion, can you post what their acceptable level ...[text shortened]... was and how they determined that models were not accurate? That would be a good starting point.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/07/new-satellite-data-still-shows-less-global-warming-than-climate-models/

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Backtracking? You are fooling yourself.

10% of what? I already made a flawless point that a number means nothing in this context when 1 year and 10 years of 10% are very different. Then there is the data. What kind? It had better be satellite temps and not airport temps. All of these factors make your number irrelevant. Only an idiot would agree to 1 ...[text shortened]... time since we may never reach an agreement anyway.

Backtracking my ass! Take a reality pill.

The gist of it is you asked a question you never intended to answer yourself, just a pitch into darkness, see what salutes so you can go back to vagarity. You really just want to argue your mentor's POV and nothing else. No matter what evidence pops up, like the disappearance of glaciers around the world, no big deal, new stuff will take its place. That seems to be the shallow viewpoint you espouse.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
The gist of it is you asked a question you never intended to answer yourself, just a pitch into darkness, see what salutes so you can go back to vagarity. You really just want to argue your mentor's POV and nothing else. No matter what evidence pops up, like the disappearance of glaciers around the world, no big deal, new stuff will take its place. That seems to be the shallow viewpoint you espouse.

You were extremely stupid for answering it. When I was asked I ignored it because it was so very stupid, but as a result you mistakenly perceived it as a weakness. Far from it.
If you are going to be a freaking idiot you deserve being exposed for it. Don't blame me for your own stupidity. You had every chance to see it for what it is. Stupidity!