To SteeleRedux and Mr. Opinion.

You two can believe whatever you want, after all your opinion on anything is your own. But the models for global warming have a terrible tracker record, and thus are not reliable sciences. It is fear laced enviornmentalism saying the end is near so much it can be assoicated with the boy who cried wolf, and ignored for the same reason that the boy crying wolf was eventually ignored. Reliability counts. Lose that and there's no reason to believe the scientist who continue in an unreliable field.

At this point though, neither of you are really making a case for climite scientists. The point of their unreliability is still just as valid and just as ignored by you two as it was when this topic opened up.

Either way, believe what you want. I'll stick by what's been already said. We should focus on reducing pollution for the purpose of reducing smog in the air and having better health in large cities. We should reduce pollution in water for the benifit of having reliable clean water. Both for ourselves and for the wildlife around us. These two things are real enviornmental issues, climite science's global warming is a fear laced scam. If you want to believe in it, that's on you. Don't try to drag the rest of us down based on your opinions.

NNS,

Well said.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Have you seen the article Bazz told me about:

Cook, J., et al. 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature', Environmental Research Letters 8 (2), 2013.

Bazz reckons it's the bee's knees.

Dear NNS,

You write;

“You two can believe whatever you want, after all your opinion on anything is your own. But the models for global warming have a terrible tracker record, and thus are not reliable sciences”

Firstly you are the one offering an unsubstantiated opinion not I. What I did was to link to a reputable site which shows how the various predictions by the IPCC and Hansen have fared, and it shows just how bloody good they have been and continue to be.

You have somehow managed to I assume digest this information and still prattle on about models having “a terrible tracker(sic) record”. They demonstrably do not.

You did not offer anything that would refute the data presented just 'your opinion'.

The only real opinion I offered was attempting to judge the degree of idiocy it would take for someone to adopt a position like yours.

I don't think much of the global warming narrative.
To me the beach is still where it always was...

- And humans will always have to master their environment -
You live in a house to protect yourself from predators, and to reduce the impact of changes in the weather right?

- For morons who don't get it, that's how one 'masters ones own environment'

But there was one thing I heard a few months back which made me wonder if there isn't maybe something more to this story.

I heard that dark skinned peoples in certain places (like Fiji or closer to India iI recall correctly - sorry I'm vague) had reported unusual extreme sunburns.

- Don't know the truth of it, or what it all means -

SR,

Writing to NNS..."[you] prattle on about models having “a terrible tracker(sic) record”. They demonstrably do not."

Well maybe he took note of the link I had earlier (which you assiduously avoided) which showed that most models over estimated the predicted warming.

Or perhaps he saw that even the IPCC had observed that " 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble" (Translated from bureaucratese it means most models showed higher warming than the actual data from HadCRUT4) and HadCRUT4 shows higher warming than most data sets.

Or he might point to the IPCC again: "The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998–2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some [some? 111 out of 114] CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentration than is consistent with observations"

Maybe one might decide that, if even the IPCC shows the models as exaggerating the warming, that might outweigh the cherry-picking of one article.

Just a thought.

SR writes to me:"IPCC modelling and that from the 'father of global warming' James Hansen are now 'carefully selected'?"

No. Let me restate in ways you might understand. The article "carefully selected" data from the IPCC and Hansen. Hansen has made several prediction. The article takes one of those and tries to pretend that that was his sole prediction. Ditto for the IPCC which has made literally hundreds of predictions (they call them 'scenarios'). Pick a few that match reality and pretend this proves something. Or at least hope that it fools those who so deeply want to be fooled. In your case they succeeded