Predicting the past

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I don't even know who was asked those questions in the PDF you provided. Are they climate scientists? You thought the AMS were climate scientists and they were not. Lets start there.

This is survey data from your friend Dr. Spencer, which you provided to prove your point. If you don't like the dataset, it would seem that you need better source material to make your arguments. We're pretty deep into this thread but you still have not backed up either of your statements regarding the validity of climate models or the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change. If the facts supported your opinion, it should be apparent by now. And yet even your own references seem to contradict what you're saying. Why are these "facts" so elusive?

Edit: I hope you understand that I am honestly trying to understand your perspective, and learn from the materials you are presenting to make the argument. I guess we can start wherever you want to make your point, but I don't think the road leading to "are the survey participants climate scientists?" will resolve any of the existing conflicts here.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You know of them now.

Nope.

Originally posted by wildgrass
This is survey data from your friend Dr. Spencer, which you provided to prove your point. If you don't like the dataset, it would seem that you need better source material to make your arguments. We're pretty deep into this thread but you still have not backed up either of your statements regarding the validity of climate models or the scientific consensus ...[text shortened]... re the survey participants climate scientists?" will resolve any of the existing conflicts here.

"but I don't think the road leading to "are the survey participants climate scientists?" will resolve any of the existing conflicts here."

So are you saying that climate scientists are no better at understanding climate change than people who are not climate scientists? Sonhouse and humy do not share that opinion.

You have not shown a poll of climate scientists that shows they think man is the main cause of global warming. Does that mean you do not regard consensus as a relevant point here? I'm just trying to find out what drives your opinion on this subject. Whose opinion(s) really matters to you?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"but I don't think the road leading to "are the survey participants climate scientists?" will resolve any of the existing conflicts here."

So are you saying that climate scientists are no better at understanding climate change than people who are not climate scientists? Sonhouse and humy do not share that opinion.

You have not shown a poll of clima ...[text shortened]... ng to find out what drives your opinion on this subject. Whose opinion(s) really matters to you?

A couple of pages of comments ago you stated "Most climate scientists do NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming. This is a fact, not a theory." Yet both of the polling studies you have cited on this thread actually conclude exactly the opposite. I don't necessarily care who the participants are, only that you provide a justification for what you consider to be a fact. Why are you standing by a statement that has been falsified by two of your own references?

What drives my opinion is the data. I would like to see data. If a scientist is saying that 97% of climate models are "wrong", I would like to see some indication of his methodology and how that conclusion was determined. I don't see that in your reference. How am I supposed to interpret data from a single study with no methods or description or context, while other studies in high-impact journals with controls and methods and statistics seem to support the accuracy of the models?

On that note, just a few weeks ago, Nature published a meta-analytical study using surface temp, satellite temp, ocean temp, etc. compared to model simulations [1]. This study presented surface temp trends over many decades and presented graphs very similar to the ones you have pointed me to (See Figure 5 of the Nature paper). The figure plots observed air and sea surface temps against modeled results, presents confidence values, figure legend, error bars, and concludes "excellent agreement between models and observations."

I cannot justify discounting this comprehensive study, in favor of data without error bars, statistics or methodology. How do you do it?

[1] https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v545/n7652/full/nature22315.html

Originally posted by wildgrass
A couple of pages of comments ago you stated "Most climate scientists do NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming. This is a fact, not a theory." Yet both of the polling studies you have cited on this thread actually conclude exactly the opposite. I don't necessarily care who the participants are, only that you provide a justification for wha ...[text shortened]... How do you do it?

[1] https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v545/n7652/full/nature22315.html

"A couple of pages of comments ago you stated "Most climate scientists do NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming. This is a fact, not a theory." Yet both of the polling studies you have cited on this thread actually conclude exactly the opposite."

The above statement you made is untrue. I proved that at least one was a poll that was not from climate scientists. Perhaps both of them were, but it is hard to follow every error that you have made and I have proven you wrong.

I insist that you admit your above statement is false before we continue with this debate.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Nope.

Yes, you do. You cited them yourself.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"A couple of pages of comments ago you stated "Most climate scientists do NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming. This is a fact, not a theory." Yet both of the polling studies you have cited on this thread actually conclude exactly the opposite."

The above statement you made is untrue. I proved that at least one was a poll that was no ...[text shortened]... g.

I insist that you admit your above statement is false before we continue with this debate.

The global scientific community is eagerly awaiting the evidence that "Most climate scientists do NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming." Once we have that, which you still haven't shown 50+ forum posts later, we can move on to wherever your evidence is that climate models aren't accurate.

Originally posted by wildgrass
The global scientific community is eagerly awaiting the evidence that "Most climate scientists do NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming." Once we have that, which you still haven't shown 50+ forum posts later, we can move on to wherever your evidence is that climate models aren't accurate.

The American Meteorology Society members are common people, not exclusively climate scientists. You made a false claim and I proved you wrong.
Most climate scientists do NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming. I stand by my statement. You have attempted to prove me wrong and failed every time. Live with your failure.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The American Meteorology Society members are common people, not exclusively climate scientists. You made a false claim and I proved you wrong.
Most climate scientists do NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming. I stand by my statement. You have attempted to prove me wrong and failed every time. Live with your failure.

I can only work with the information available. What about the other study you presented, which actually divided up the answers based on publication records in peer reviewed journals?

Edit: I just went back and found your post which told me to specifically look at this dataset

Go on the link and click on "consensus and skeptics". It is a PDF that I could not copy and paste.

Why, for the love of sanity, would you ask me to go through that whole rigamarole, read that document, and to then discredit the same source?

Originally posted by wildgrass
I can only work with the information available. What about the other study you presented, which actually divided up the answers based on publication records in peer reviewed journals?

Edit: I just went back and found your post which told me to specifically look at this dataset [quote]Go on the link and click on "consensus and skeptics". It is a PDF that ...[text shortened]... to go through that whole rigamarole, read that document, and to then discredit the same source?

Which study? We have all posted a lot on here.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Which study? We have all posted a lot on here.

Since you have no evidence to support this, let's drop it and focus on your evidence that climate models aren't accurate enough to provide useful predictions of future climate.

Let's see the data.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Most climate scientists do NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming.

I don't believe you. You're wrong.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Since you have no evidence to support this, let's drop it and focus on your evidence that climate models aren't accurate enough to provide useful predictions of future climate.

Let's see the data.

You want to drop it because you have no evidence to support your assertion that climate models are accurate. Future predictions are acceptable to me if you can show the data. I do not think it is reasonable for you to expect me to prove a negative. Resorting to that is usually due to a failure to debate fairly.
If I asked you to prove a negative would you think I was being reasonable or desperate to avoid providing proof myself?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't believe you. You're wrong.

Everyone on here that has tried to prove me wrong has failed. Most have posted links that show polls of ordinary people who are NOT climate scientists. For example, wildgrass thought he had a poll of climate scientists that proved the majority of them believe man is the main cause of GW. It was actually a poll of American Meteorology Society members. Any moron can join the AMS. He proved nothing.

Try to prove me wrong if you can. Everyone has the chance to try.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I do not think it is reasonable for you to expect me to prove a negative. Resorting to that is usually due to a failure to debate fairly. If I asked you to prove a negative would you think I was being reasonable or desperate to avoid providing proof myself?

I'm not asking you to prove a negative (although it is perfectly reasonable to do so.) You are asserting that there is a statistically significant difference between modeled climate and observed climate. That would qualify as a positive result. Yet you appear to have no evidence to support it.