Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 9:33pm:


These papers have all been through the per-reviewed process, and most don't stand up to scrutiny.

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 9:33pm:


Because I read, I comprehend, I think. There are many things I am not qualified to comment on. But there are many I am.

So if we look at all those climate models, each with their own parameters, logic tells us only ONE can be right. It might even be right for the wrong reasons. But people want to use an average of climate models.

They don't seem to understand that does nothing to help the modelling. Those running warm get brought down to the mean. Those running cool get dragged up to the mean. Where is the real answer? It is very unlikely to be the mean.

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 10:08pm:


Whose scrutiny is that, again?

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 10:08pm:


You judge yourself qualified to decide whether scientists are doing science correctly.



lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 10:10pm:


Unless the peanut gallery is populated with climate scientists, I don't see the point.

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 12:06pm:


Actually I didn't spot the typo, and I wouldn't care because everyone makes typos.

You say that "most don't stand up to scrutiny" but whose scrutiny is it?

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 12:06pm:


Getting a tad defensive, there.

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 12:06pm:


Such as?

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 1:30pm:


Yeah, I don't care about citizen scientists. Can you cite these climate scientists? (You know, the ones you think aren't experts anyway.)

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 1:30pm:


It was a good laugh. You seem confused by energy units, and you forgot your citations.

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 1:30pm:


Meh, I'm pretty confident that the BOM know what they're doing.

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 1:30pm:


In other words: "I was bluffing. I can't show that any of them are actually climate scientists."

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 3:06pm:


Like I said, you seem to be confused with energy units. If you don't know how it works, you definitely aren't able to offer a meaningful criticism of their methods.

Have you actually read Cheng et al, because...

lee wrote on Mar 29^th, 2019 at 6:10pm:


...the paper doesn't say that.

Cite your actual source, thanks.

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 4:04pm:


I suspect you're getting your claims from a blog post:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/11/a-small-margin-of-error/

The lesson is simple: you should check the blogger's sources to see if they are representing them correctly.

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 4:04pm:


I have access to the full text PDF, yes.

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2019 at 5:48pm:


Thanks. I think I've got a fairly complete picture, now.

Here's what you wrote, for reference:

lee wrote on Mar 29^th, 2019 at 6:10pm:


It turns out you didn't read Cheng et al ("Hausfathers paper"); you read a blog post that doesn't even reference the article, let alone cite it.

You've just parroted the blogger, Willis Eschenbach, who claims the data can't possibly be as accurate at it claims to be.

Which brings us back to the same problem you've got with that other blogger, Bob Irvine. How do you judge that these guys know what they're talking about? Willis Eschenbach has "no credentials in any scientific field".

There's a pattern here, lee: You parrot the claims of citizen scientist bloggers whom you believe because you are confident in your own ability to detect BS.

You also talk a big game about number-crunching, but based on your pattern of parroting bloggers, I bet that's all talk and no walk.

(BTW it's fine for you to just be honest and cite the blog post as your source. If you're worried it'll look bad, then maybe that's telling you something.)