Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 801 to 811 of 811

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    [...] My posts can't be un-bunked.
    ftfy
    Tropical cyclones are declining. The climate models predicted more.

    The climate models are wrong.

    Pretending that is debunked doesn't make it debunked.

    Climate advocates are fascinating.
    Something you don’t seem to understand is that forecasting models are almost never right. They aren’t expected to be right and no professional in any forecast dependent field would ever make 100% forecast dependent decisions.

    Moreover, forecast models are rarely totally wrong either. They are a compilation of selected, necessarily and methodologically limited and certainly not comprehensive historical information and data which then is likely further modified throughout with adjustments, assumptions and and formulas, regressions, etc based on history and employ assumptions and proven rules to project forward. At some level they will very likely be getting something right and something wrong.

    Your own views of the future will also entail you making and applying historical data and experience you have encountered and then projecting it forward based on assumptions you are making. Any forecasts you make will almost certainly be ‘wrong’ as well.
    Let me understand you correctly.

    You're admitting tropical cyclones were predicted to increase, and instead they decreased.

    Am I correct?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  2. #802

  3. #803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Here's a good resource for you MrCombust: http://www.pickyourown.org/CNALedmonton.htm
    My post was about cyclones. Predictions about them were wrong. Changing the topic isn't debunking my post.

    My post about cyclones cannot be debunked.

    How about hurricanes? You guys want to talk about hurricanes next?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  4. #804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    My post was about cyclones.
    Correction. Your post was about cyclones in a very select cherry-picked point of time.


    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Predictions about them were wrong.
    If you allow only the minute amount of data you've cherry picked, you're correct!

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Changing the cherrypicked IS debunking my post.
    yup, ftfy. Notice the small edit


    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    My post about cyclones cannot be debunked.
    too late
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    How about hurricanes? You guys want to talk about hurricanes next?
    okay! Lets talk.

  5. #805
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Here's a good resource for you MrCombust: http://www.pickyourown.org/CNALedmonton.htm
    My post was about cyclones. Predictions about them were wrong. Changing the topic isn't debunking my post.

    My post about cyclones cannot be debunked.

    How about hurricanes? You guys want to talk about hurricanes next?
    do we want to talk about hurricanes next? probably not.

    not to insult the hurricanes along with the cyclones but we're probably just not ready to respond to your version of the TRUTH about hurricanes quite yet.

    at this point, we're simply overloaded and just can't handle the TRUTH.

    maybe we just need some time to take a break if you're willing to give us that. say for a couple of years?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  6. #806

    Default The TRUTH about fake carbon credits.

    Ontario has created a fake financial product called "carbon credits". They will do nothing for the environment and are worthless except...……… companies will be forced to buy and trade them under the cap and trade rules.

    Alberta is next.

    https://business.financialpost.com/o...-can-feel-good

    "
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  7. #807
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,084

    Default

    You should probably do some research into the economics of carbon pricing and cap and trade before you say they do nothing.

    But on the other side Ontario is getting rid of the cap and trade thanks to Doug Ford... So hooray for you I guess? Scientific illiteracy wins out again.

  8. #808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    You should probably do some research into the economics of carbon pricing and cap and trade before you say they do nothing.

    But on the other side Ontario is getting rid of the cap and trade thanks to Doug Ford... So hooray for you I guess? Scientific illiteracy wins out again.
    You're absoluty right. Bankrupting all the businesess will reduce CO2 emissions.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  9. #809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    [...] My posts can't be un-bunked.
    ftfy
    Tropical cyclones are declining. The climate models predicted more.

    The climate models are wrong.

    Pretending that is debunked doesn't make it debunked.

    Climate advocates are fascinating.
    Something you don’t seem to understand is that forecasting models are almost never right. They aren’t expected to be right and no professional in any forecast dependent field would ever make 100% forecast dependent decisions.

    Moreover, forecast models are rarely totally wrong either. They are a compilation of selected, necessarily and methodologically limited and certainly not comprehensive historical information and data which then is likely further modified throughout with adjustments, assumptions and and formulas, regressions, etc based on history and employ assumptions and proven rules to project forward. At some level they will very likely be getting something right and something wrong.

    Your own views of the future will also entail you making and applying historical data and experience you have encountered and then projecting it forward based on assumptions you are making. Any forecasts you make will almost certainly be ‘wrong’ as well.
    Let me understand you correctly.

    You're admitting tropical cyclones were predicted to increase, and instead they decreased.

    Am I correct?
    I have no idea what they were predicting. However I would bet that some parts of their modelling got some things right and some things wrong. Moreover in predicting within any complex system, timing is often wrong. That’s why sometimes longer term predictions often “perform” better than short term predictions.

    Also, say they got it all wrong. That just means they will have to go back to the drawing board and try again. That’s the nature of science vs ideology.

    The issue of climate change has been distilled down into some simplistic threats that may or may not materialize and may or may not occur according to current predictive timelines. However, there are thousands of models being worked on and a good number of them will yield predictions that can’t match reality now but will slowly evolve into useful predictive tools.

    We lived for decades with poor local weather predictions and took them with a grain of salt. Nonetheless we didn’t abandon the forecasts but instead stuck with the idea of continuous improvement in such forecasting and today they are far better at short term local weather forecasts.

  10. #810
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    You should probably do some research into the economics of carbon pricing and cap and trade before you say they do nothing.

    But on the other side Ontario is getting rid of the cap and trade thanks to Doug Ford... So hooray for you I guess? Scientific illiteracy wins out again.
    You're absoluty right. Bankrupting all the businesess will reduce CO2 emissions.
    actually there are a number of jurisdictions that have demonstrated exactly the opposite. as scotland phased out the use of coal for electricity generation and home heating and the costs of electricity and natural gas rose to the point where they became unaffordable - effectively bankrupting them - people reverted to cutting and burning peat and drastically increased co2 emissions as a result (along with smog and air pollution).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #811

    Default

    This link below speaks to the issue. Seems pretty clear that their predictive capabilities are limited and they know it. The point is, they are trying to figure out what works and what doesn’t so they basically expect their models to be wrong in some or other fashion.


    Impacts – XIV – Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change 1 – The Science of Doom

    https://scienceofdoom.com/2017/09/24...mate-change-1/

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •