The thread of fantastically stupid skeptic climate predictions

[skierinvermont]

Why shouldn't they be used to undermine his peer-reviewed work?

Because they are clearly not representative of his peer-reviewed work. In fact, they are in direct contradiction to his peer-reviewed work.

Your comments on the other hand, are completely representative of your understanding of climate. You have argued in favor of such predictions intensively. Hansen on the other hand has spent his entire career arguing in direct contradiction to the off-hand poorly thought out comments in question.

His comments make no sense viewed in comparison to his peer-reviewed work.

Your comments are completely representative of the way you think on the subject.

[nzucker]

Because they are clearly not representative of his peer-reviewed work. In fact, they are in direct contradiction to his peer-reviewed work.

Your comments on the other hand, are completely representative of your understanding of climate. You have argued in favor of such predictions intensively. Hansen on the other hand has spent his entire career arguing in direct contradiction to the off-hand poorly thought out comments in question.

I love how you get to decide which comments are representative of someone's beliefs or not...and then that becomes the standard by which ALL should judge these comments.

It's amazing how you engineer everything to be self-serving.

[tacoman25]

Why shouldn't they be used to undermine his peer-reviewed work? If he wants to present an unreasonable viewpoint to the media, then it's his personal choice to endanger the general belief in his scientific papers. I think it's entirely fair that skeptics criticize Hansen for bias and exaggeration; he's opened these doors himself through his activist lifestyle and extreme comments. His data has even been corrected by skeptics for inaccuracies and mistakes, further undermining his own publications as well as the temperature dataset he runs, GISS.

You are willing to take every off-hand comment and use it to generalize that everything skeptics say is dangerous and irresponsible, faulting them for their entire philosophy through a few failed predictions, and yet you refuse to apply the same standard to scientists (who in my opinion should adhere to a higher standard than Internet skeptics). It's clearly a DOUBLE STANDARD. If skeptics can be discredited for a flawed prediction in the manner that you're castigating Bethesda and me, labeling us as irresponsible and deliberately prejudiced, then why shouldn't scientists have to deal with this reality as well?

Exactly. This thread illustrates the fact that skiier is willing to hold amateur comments on a message board to a higher standard than statements made by actual scientists. Ridiculous.

And his rationale? These statements supposedly represent the evil skeptics' organized attack on peer-reviewed science. So he has the right to hold them to a different standard.

[tacoman25]

I clearly did not mean that such comments could not be evaluated at all. What I clearly meant was that comments which are not representative of peer-reviewed work should not be used to undermine peer-reviewed work.

I evaluated the given comments myself. I said they were wrong and should not have been made. So how can you accuse me of saying that Hansen's comments should NEVER be evaluated, when I have evaluated those comments myself dozens of times? It's a direct contradiction. I've said Hansen's off-hand comments are wrong and irresponsible more times than I can count. And yet you continue to claim that i've said these comments should never be evaluated.

So again I ask, what more would you like me to say about Hansen's comments that I have not already said? I've asked this 4 times now. No answer yet.

I never said anything about Hansen. What are you talking about? Go back to the thread I bumped where you objected to me using statements not made in scientific journals.

[LakeEffectKing]

Skier..................................thread FAIL.

[skierinvermont]

I love how you get to decide which comments are representative of someone's beliefs or not...and then that becomes the standard by which ALL should judge these comments.

It's amazing how you engineer everything to be self-serving.

You've predicted cooling in the coming decades dozens of times and have argued fervently in support of these predictions.

Are you telling me you never meant any of this and would like to retract all of those statements?

If so, that is fantastic news!

[skierinvermont]

Still waiting for somebody to tell me which comments of Hansen's I have not criticized adequately enough.

I have said that they are wrong, stupid, and irresponsible dozens of times in this thread and in the past on this forum and in private. Several people have accused me of not judging his statements adequately and yet not one person has answered my question. I've asked 5 times now.

[Clifford]

Truthfully long term climate and weather predictions are difficult at best.

In 2006, David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center was predicting one of the strongest solar cycles of the century.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/

Now, in 2011 that estimate has been revised to be later and lower.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

Undoubtedly all weather and climate related prediction technologies will be improved over time.

[nzucker]

You've predicted cooling in the coming decades dozens of times and have argued fervently in support of these predictions.

Are you telling me you never meant any of this and would like to retract all of those statements?

If so, that is fantastic news!

Not really...I said that I believe we'll warm this century overall, with minor cooling possible in the 2010-2030 period, depending on how the solar minimum and volcanic activity go. I don't think that's too extreme of a prediction, and it doesn't deny my essential belief that carbon WILL warm us in the long-term, albeit less than imagined IMO. I'm just taking the sensible viewpoint that natural drivers are the most important in short-term temperature trends, since CO2 has failed to overwhelm these factors in the last decade. By the way, arguing that we'll cool slightly is much closer to the current reality than saying like Hansen and Viner that we'll see >3C warming this century; satellites are only showing the warming rate since 1998 around .08C/decade, about a third of what most climatologists had predicted. With the AMO dropping and not much happening in terms of solar activity, it'll be hard for this trend to dramatically accelerate. At this point, the onus is on the mainstream AGW scientists to explain why we are not seeing the expected trend, not on the skeptics to prove that we'll cool. The expectation is that we WILL warm dramatically, and so far that hasn't happened, so overall the skeptics are doing well despite being too extreme.

And no, I wouldn't like to retract the prediction that we'll see little significant warming by 2020 and may experience some bouts of cooling if we get into a Dalton scenario.

Still waiting for somebody to tell me which comments of Hansen's I have not criticized adequately enough.

I have said that they are wrong, stupid, and irresponsible dozens of times in this thread and in the past on this forum and in private. Several people have accused me of not judging his statements adequately and yet not one person has answered my question. I've asked 5 times now.

It is not what you have said about Hansen recently...it's your willingness in the past to excuse him for having a "colorful remark" while you go on to post dozens of huge "FAILS" next to comments made by colleagues on this board. How about examining the scientists with the same critical lens as the skeptical posters on this board? If anything, they should be held to a more critical lens since they are highly influential in public policy, have the education necessary to make long-term predictions, and have consistently been too extreme in the matter of AGW.

Let's just go through a few of the commonly-held mainstream viewpoints and my analysis:

Hansen's 1988 temperature predictions FAIL (No source shows as much warming/century as Hansen thought would occur.)

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," said David Viner, senior climatologist at the CRU. FAIL (December 2010 was one of the snowiest in London's history with nearly 30" falling in some suburbs, and Winter 09-10 was also noted for exceptional snowfalls).

"An Inconvenient Truth:" Al Gore suggests Antarctic ice cover is melting and melting Kilimanjaro snows are evidence of global warming. FAIL (Antarctic sea ice has generally been higher in recent years and Kilimanjaro snows are more to do with precipitation patterns than temperature.)

Hadley Center, in the Guardian: "Unchecked global warming could bring a severe temperature rise of 4C within many people's lifetimes, according to a new report for the British government that significantly raises the stakes over climate change. The study updates the findings of the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which said the world would probably warm by 4C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. The IPCC also listed a more severe scenario, with emissions and temperatures rising further because of more intensive fossil fuel burning, but this was not considered realistic. "That scenario was downplayed because we were more conservative a few years ago. But the way we are going, the most severe scenario is looking more plausible," Betts said. FAIL (More severe scenario is certainly not looking plausible: global warming has slowed to a rate of ~.12C/decade on GISS, the warmest source, natural indicators such as the PDO and solar activity are pointed towards cooling, estimates of climate sensitivity have been revised down in recent years...)

[skierinvermont]

It is not what you have said about Hansen recently...it's your willingness in the past to excuse him for having a "colorful remark" while you go on to post dozens of huge "FAILS" next to comments made by colleagues on this board. How about examining the scientists with the same critical lens as the skeptical posters on this board? If anything, they should be held to a more critical lens since they are highly influential in public policy, have the education necessary to make long-term predictions, and have consistently been too extreme in the matter of AGW.

I haven't "excused" him for making colorful remarks. I have said that the remarks are stupid. And I can quote myself saying that in the last two weeks, prior to this thread, if you would like.

What I have said is that these comments do not reflect upon the peer-reviewed science and they are not even reflective of Hansen's own actual views, since they directly contradict other comments of his to the media, and his peer-reviewed work.

Let's just go through a few of the commonly-held mainstream viewpoints and my analysis:

Hansen's 1988 temperature predictions FAIL (No source shows as much warming/century as Hansen thought would occur.)

Indeed his 1988 model shows slightly more warming than has occurred. So technically I guess you can say "Fail" but it was a reasonable prediction at the time. The model predicted .45C of warming from then to present, and we've seen about .35-.4C. Pretty good, but yes technically too warm.

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," said David Viner, senior climatologist at the CRU. FAIL (December 2010 was one of the snowiest in London's history with nearly 30" falling in some suburbs, and Winter 09-10 was also noted for exceptional snowfalls).

Out of context. He also said "snow will become a rare event" and that "heavy snows will return." You of course, chose to delete these comments in order to twist his meaning. Even tacoman agreed to ignore the Viner comments since his meaning is clearly only that snow will become rarer, on average, in the long-run, which it has and will continue to do so. When rational points like this are brought to tacoman's attention he consistently and objectively acknowledges them. You on the other hand ignore them, switch to a different tact for a couple weeks, and then come back to the same old disproven and manipulative talking point from your tired old play-book. Which is why I vastly prefer to discuss these sorts of things with tacoman than you.

"An Inconvenient Truth:" Al Gore suggests Antarctic ice cover is melting and melting Kilimanjaro snows are evidence of global warming. FAIL (Antarctic sea ice has generally been higher in recent years and Kilimanjaro snows are more to do with precipitation patterns than temperature.)

This one is just plain stupid and irresponsible by Al Gore. Nothing more to say.

Hadley Center, in the Guardian: "Unchecked global warming could bring a severe temperature rise of 4C within many people's lifetimes, according to a new report for the British government that significantly raises the stakes over climate change. The study updates the findings of the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which said the world would probably warm by 4C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. The IPCC also listed a more severe scenario, with emissions and temperatures rising further because of more intensive fossil fuel burning, but this was not considered realistic. "That scenario was downplayed because we were more conservative a few years ago. But the way we are going, the most severe scenario is looking more plausible," Betts said. FAIL (More severe scenario is certainly not looking plausible: global warming has slowed to a rate of ~.12C/decade on GISS, the warmest source, natural indicators such as the PDO and solar activity are pointed towards cooling, estimates of climate sensitivity have been revised down in recent years...)

The mean estimate of climate sensitivity hasn't been revised down. The upper end has been revised down from 1.5-6.5 to more like 1.5-5.5C/doubling. The forecast is still within accepted confidence intervals and seems to be relying on the fact that governments have thus far shown no effort to reduce CO2 and have only hastened the tradition to coal from dwindling oil.

So you see, I have been, and am, perfectly willing, even eager to criticize scientists where deserved. Just as I am perfectly willing to call out the poor prediction and understanding demonstrated by skeptics here and on WUWT.

[tacoman25]

Still waiting for somebody to tell me which comments of Hansen's I have not criticized adequately enough.

I have said that they are wrong, stupid, and irresponsible dozens of times in this thread and in the past on this forum and in private. Several people have accused me of not judging his statements adequately and yet not one person has answered my question. I've asked 5 times now.

That's not the point. Not for me, at least. The point is that you feel the need to create a whole thread pointing out errant predictions (classless and immature, if nothing else, considering you singled out several posters you always disagree with on here)...and yet when I pointed out errant AGW predictions in another thread, you said we should only focus on published scientific statements. DOUBLE STANDARD.

I'm still waiting for you to give an adequate answer for why this stupid thread even exists...and one that doesn't contradict what you've said elsewhere.

But keep trying to redirect to Hansen.

[nzucker]

Out of context. He also said "snow will become a rare event" and that "heavy snows will return." You of course, chose to delete these comments in order to twist his meaning. Even tacoman agreed to ignore the Viner comments since his meaning is clearly only that snow will become rarer, on average, in the long-run, which it has and will continue to do so. When rational points like this are brought to tacoman's attention he consistently and objectively acknowledges them. You on the other hand ignore them, switch to a different tact for a couple weeks, and then come back to the same old disproven and manipulative talking point from your tired old play-book. Which is why I vastly prefer to discuss these sorts of things with tacoman than you.

The mean estimate of climate sensitivity hasn't been revised down. The upper end has been revised down from 1.5-6.5 to more like 1.5-5.5C/doubling. The forecast is still within accepted confidence intervals and seems to be relying on the fact that governments have thus far shown no effort to reduce CO2 and have only hastened the tradition to coal from dwindling oil.

1)Viner's comment "children aren't going to know what snow is" is representative of the typical extremist, attention-seeking comments that have been common in the often fraudulent AGW movement, just as was Al Gore's portrayal of Hurricane Katrina as the sign of impending doom from global warming. Sure, Viner moderated himself by suggesting later that it would snow in rare circumstances, but he was clearly looking for a "sound-bite" that would drive home the realities of global warming, and this was the idea that children won't be able to see one of their favorite things in the future because of the evil of AGW. If he wanted to present a more moderate view, why make such an outlandish comment at all?

Also, tying the lack of snowfall in Britain during the 1980s and 1990s to global warming was clearly fraudulent. The low snowfall was a direct result of a +NAO pattern that persisted for an unusual amount of winters before being definitively broken in the blocking winter of 08-09. As a senior climatologist at a top research center, Viner should be aware that the NAO is far more important to snowfall averages in England than a few tenths of a degree in global warming. This is similar to how the Met Office said that Winters 09-10 and 10-11 would be "mild", and then those years ended up having record cold and heavy snowfall on several occasions. Remember, December 2010 was the coldest December in the last century in Britain, and here Viner is saying it can't snow because of global warming. Indeed, I wouldn't say snowfall has become rarer if we take into account the last three winters: ask any European winter weather enthusiast, and they'll tell you that Winters 08-09, 09-10, and 10-11 were amongst their favorites, and parallel with the 1960s and the "snowy London" of Dickensian literature. If the last three winters were all historic, then can we really say snowfall is becoming much rarer? If the NAO block is triggered by the solar minimum, then Britain will continue to see above average snowfall despite changes in global temperatures. London is at 51N, and even the downtown only averages 46/36 in January, so it's not as if they're marginal for snowfall in good patterns, especially once you get into the suburbs or farther north where winters are frequently dominated by polar lows coming down the east side of Greenland.

But did Viner discuss the NAO/blocking with the public to let them know global warming wasn't the primary reason for the dud winters? No, he just took advantage of the +NAO pattern that was occurring in the late 90s/early 2000s to convince the public of the severity of the issue with an emotional appeal of children not seeing their favorite thing, snow. Did the Met office forecast based on blocking? No, of course not...they just continued to hammer the theme of milder-than-normal winters even when the pattern was clearly changing. And that's why they've been investigated by the British government for a lack of preparation for road closures, emergency supplies/vehicles, etc.

2) 4C by 2060 is an irresponsible guess given the current climate trends and natural signals. Just blatantly irresponsible.

So don't give me this crap about how Tacoman is better than me at understand this stuff, and how I just use the old play-book. Instead of worrying about what the skeptics are saying, what don't you ask yourself why scientists like Viner and Hansen can't get their climatology straight?

[skierinvermont]

That's not the point. Not for me, at least. The point is that you feel the need to create a whole thread pointing out errant predictions (classless and immature, if nothing else, considering you singled out several posters you always disagree with on here)...and yet when I pointed out errant AGW predictions in another thread, you said we should only focus on published scientific statements. DOUBLE STANDARD.

I'm still waiting for you to give an adequate answer for why this stupid thread even exists...and one that doesn't contradict what you've said elsewhere.

Well yes I would prefer to focus on scientific literature and have started many threads in an effort to draw attention to issues in the scientific literature. When possible I attempt to reference my posts with peer-reviewed sources.

If people in this forum stuck to the peer-reviewed literature instead of spewing garbage nonsense from skeptic blogs and then coming up with their own baseless and stupid climate predictions, a thread like this wouldn't be necessary.

And I've already said that I did not mean that statement you quoted literally and absolutely. Perhaps I should have been more clear at the time. What I meant was that I do not believe that off-the cuff remarks should reflect upon the peer-reviewed literature. The reasoning behind and the performance of the peer-reviewed literature should be judged separately. I do not mean that we cannot criticize scientists for their off-the cuff comments. Only that the peer-reviewed literature should be judged independently from these comments. So if you would like to consider that a revision to my previous statement, please do so.

If predictions, or reasoning, or facts, in the peer-reviewed literature are found to be in error, then they should be judged upon that basis. Not on the basis of what an author might mistakenly say or exaggerate in the media. We can still of course criticize what scientists say in the media.

[nzucker]

Well yes I would prefer to focus on scientific literature and have started many threads in an effort to draw attention to issues in the scientific literature. When possible I attempt to reference my posts with peer-reviewed sources.

If people in this forum stuck to the peer-reviewed literature instead of spewing garbage nonsense from skeptic blogs and then coming up with their own baseless and stupid climate predictions, a thread like this wouldn't be necessary.

How can you criticize people for voting in a global temperature poll?

If they vote incorrectly, so be it...most people probably don't think about it that much. And it's certainly not as bad as Viner or arctic sea ice panel 2009...Live and let live brother. And truly, be inquisitive and critical of your own viewpoints...question why those that we should be looking up to are frequently making extreme/erroneous predictions, instead of worrying about what skeptic blogs are posted on a weather forum. And, most importantly, realize that overall, the skeptics are doing well...the warming is staying well below what was predicted. And 2011 is going to help.

[skierinvermont]

1)Viner's comment "children aren't going to know what snow is" is representative of the typical extremist, attention-seeking comments that have been common in the often fraudulent AGW movement, just as was Al Gore's portrayal of Hurricane Katrina as the sign of impending doom from global warming.

It was said in the same sentence as saying "heavy snow will return" and "snow will become a rare event."

The comments were reported WHOLE in the media as one complete comment.

Only in the blogosphere have people like you and Anthony Watts literally lopped off half the comment in order to twist his meaning. It's intentional manipulation and you should be ashamed. Tacoman has agreed to move on from these comments and so should you.

It seems like you're the one looking for a soundbite by lopping off half the comment.

[skierinvermont]

How can you criticize people for voting in a global temperature poll?

I will criticize ANYBODY.. ANYWHERE... ANYTIME that they are wrong.

[tacoman25]

Well yes I would prefer to focus on scientific literature and have started many threads in an effort to draw attention to issues in the scientific literature. When possible I attempt to reference my posts with peer-reviewed sources.

If people in this forum stuck to the peer-reviewed literature instead of spewing garbage nonsense from skeptic blogs and then coming up with their own baseless and stupid climate predictions, a thread like this wouldn't be necessary.

And I've already said that I did not mean that statement you quoted literally and absolutely. Perhaps I should have been more clear at the time. What I meant was that I do not believe that off-the cuff remarks should reflect upon the peer-reviewed literature. The reasoning behind and the performance of the peer-reviewed literature should be judged separately. I do not mean that we cannot criticize scientists for their off-the cuff comments. Only that the peer-reviewed literature should be judged independently from these comments. So if you would like to consider that a revision to my previous statement, please do so.

If predictions, or reasoning, or facts, in the peer-reviewed literature are found to be in error, then they should be judged upon that basis. Not on the basis of what an author might mistakenly say or exaggerate in the media. We can still of course criticize what scientists say in the media.

It's really annoying to try to have a reasonable conversation with someone who refuses to be intellectually honest.

You are criticizing amateur comments made on this site. And somehow you think this is "necessary". Yet you clearly (don't try to explain it away now) said before that when evaluating predictions, we should focus on actual scientific statements. Which simply does not jive at all with this thread.

You still have not provided any reasonable justification for a thread that is clearly picking on members of this forum, in an attempt to make them and skeptics in general look bad. Sorry, not gonna fly, especially when it's obviously a hypocritical move on your part.

Maybe you should listen to others. It's not just me seeing the blatant hypocrisy here.

[tacoman25]

I will criticize ANYBODY.. ANYWHERE... ANYTIME that they are wrong.

Right. And I'm sure you will start a fantastic thread like this every time someone is wrong, too.

[k***]

I will criticize ANYBODY.. ANYWHERE... ANYTIME that they are wrong.

righteous

[skierinvermont]

It's really annoying to try to have a reasonable conversation with someone who refuses to be intellectually honest.

You are criticizing amateur comments made on this site. And somehow you think this is "necessary". Yet you clearly (don't try to explain it away now) said before that when evaluating predictions, we should focus on actual scientific statements. Which simply does not jive at all with this thread.

You still have not provided any reasonable justification for a thread that is clearly picking on members of this forum, in an attempt to make them and skeptics in general look bad. Sorry, not gonna fly, especially when it's obviously a hypocritical move on your part.

Maybe you should listen to others. It's not just me seeing the blatant hypocrisy here.

Well as I've said 8 times now (talk about intellectual honesty.. why do I have to keep repeating this?) I DID NOT MEAN that only scientific predictions could ever be evaluated. What I mean was that comments to the media should not reflect upon actual science. If there are bad predictions, or bad arguments, or bad data in the actual peer-reviewed science, then it should be judged upon that basis.

This is obviously what I meant since in the very same thread which I made this alleged statement, I also repeatedly criticized scientists for their comments to the media. You are interpreting my comment literally and out of context because you are trying to play "gotcha." I have already clarified my comment 5+ times now and if you would like to consider it a revision, please do so.

The justification for this thread is that correcting and displaying such stupid and unjustifiable predictions will hopefully make it clear that the methodology and understanding behind them is flawed, and prevent such errors from happening again. Apparently you would rather that the skeptics go on making dozens of failed stupid and unjustifiable predictions and never be held accountable. We should just all pretend like they never happened. And the next time one of these skeptics makes another stupid unjustifiable prediction we should ignore their miserable track record.

[tacoman25]

Well as I've said 8 times now (talk about intellectual honesty.. why do I have to keep repeating this?) I DID NOT MEAN that only scientific predictions could ever be evaluated. What I mean was that comments to the media should not reflect upon actual science. If there are bad predictions, or bad arguments, or bad data in the actual peer-reviewed science, then it should be judged upon that basis.

This is obviously what I meant since in the very same thread which I made this alleged statement, I also repeatedly criticized scientists for their comments to the media. You are interpreting my comment literally and out of context because you are trying to play "gotcha." I have already clarified my comment 5+ times now and if you would like to consider it a revision, please do so.

The justification for this thread is that correcting and displaying such stupid and unjustifiable predictions will hopefully make it clear that the methodology and understanding behind them is flawed, and prevent such errors from happening again.

You don't have to keep repeating the same thing over and over. You just aren't getting it. And you don't like that I did catch you in full on hypocrisy that several others noted as well.

If predictions that go through the media (although if you look at your initial response to me in the AGW predictions thread, you didn't single out the media...you didn't like focusing on predictions outside of scientific articles, period) don't necessarily reflect the science perfectly, why should you expect comments from weather geeks on this forum to? You think you are proving something meaningful by pointing out missed predictions by board members here?

Give me a break. You ARE holding members on here to higher standards than scientists, because even when scientists make predictions that are off, you don't say "that proves their science is flawed" - even though they are actually scientists, unlike the posters on here!

Completely illogical and absolutely hypocritical.

[skierinvermont]

You don't have to keep repeating the same thing over and over. You just aren't getting it. And you don't like that I did catch you in full on hypocrisy that several others noted as well.

If predictions that go through the media (although if you look at your initial response to me in the AGW predictions thread, you didn't single out the media...you didn't like focusing on predictions outside of scientific articles, period) don't necessarily reflect the science perfectly, why should you expect comments from weather geeks on this forum to? You think you are proving something meaningful by pointing out missed predictions by board members here?

Give me a break. You ARE holding members on here to higher standards than scientists, because even when scientists make predictions that are off, you don't say "that proves their science is flawed" - even though they are actually scientists, unlike the posters on here!

Completely illogical and absolutely hypocritical.

So basically you think that the non-stop stream of mental perversion we are subject to here on daily basis should continue and anybody that tries to draw attention to this is a hypocrite.

And no I don't think the comments made by skeptics here reflect the science. Nobody here is published (that I know of). I think they represent individuals own confused and warped opinions. And I am criticizing them upon that basis.

If somebody would like to come forward and say that they didn't mean the prediction I've quoted and retract the prediction and any argument they made in favor of it, I would be delighted.

[tacoman25]

So basically you think that the non-stop stream of mental perversion we are subject to here on daily basis should continue and anybody that tries to draw attention to this is a hypocrite.

1) Try reading what I wrote.

2) "Mental perversion"? Take a step back, man.

3) I've made it very clear how this thread is hypocritical. Double standards.

[tacoman25]

And no I don't think the comments made by skeptics here reflect the science. Nobody here is published (that I know of). I think they represent individuals own confused and warped opinions. And I am criticizing them upon that basis.

Well thank God we have skiier to save these poor souls....by creating a thread calling them fantastically stupid. And using the evidence of missed predictions - even though some notable scientists have ALSO missed predictions.

This is making me sick. Good night.

[skierinvermont]

1) Try reading what I wrote.

2) "Mental perversion"? Take a step back, man.

3) I've made it very clear how this thread is hypocritical. Double standards.

There is no double standard.

I will and have criticized bad comments scientists have made to the media as well as in their peer-reviewed work.

And I have and will continue to criticize board members for their bad predictions, especially those that are founded in a deep-seated rejection of fundamental science.

There is no contradiction. There is no hypocrisy.

[skierinvermont]

Well thank God we have skiier to save these poor souls....by creating a thread calling them fantastically stupid. And using the evidence of missed predictions - even though some notable scientists have ALSO missed predictions.

This is making me sick. Good night.

Which I have also criticized.

[Clifford]

How can you criticize people for voting in a global temperature poll?

I will criticize ANYBODY.. ANYWHERE... ANYTIME that they are wrong.

Until the deadline of the prediction... or a good part of it has passed, all the arguments in either direction are purely theoretical.

You present a good argument for less sea ice this summer, but at this point we still have two to three times as much sea ice in the arctic region as predicted for September. Just wait and see.

For global temperatures. About 3% of the decade has passed and we are right on track for a cooler decade. At least wait until average temperature anomalies have exceeded those of the previous decade before slinging mud.

[tacoman25]

There is no double standard.

I will and have criticized bad comments scientists have made to the media as well as in their peer-reviewed work.

And I have and will continue to criticize board members for their bad predictions, especially those that are founded in a deep-seated rejection of fundamental science.

There is no contradiction. There is no hypocrisy.

Yes, just keep saying "there is no double standard, no contradiction, no hypocrisy". Denial solves all!

I clearly explained to you how you are unfairly applying a different standard to the posters on here than you do to actual scientists. You don't start threads outlining the mis-calls of scientists, do you? Even though they should be held to a higher standard. I know you are smart enough to get this, yet you just continue to toot your own horn and keep your blinders on.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, just keep saying "there is no double standard, no contradiction, no hypocrisy". Denial solves all!

I clearly explained to you how you are unfairly applying a different standard to the posters on here than you do to actual scientists. You don't start threads outlining the mis-calls of scientists, do you? Even though they should be held to a higher standard. I know you are smart enough to get this, yet you just continue to toot your own horn and keep your blinders on.

Not only have I criticized scientists for their predictions in peer-review and their comments to the media, but I have also started threads upon that basis.

There is no contradiction.

[tacoman25]

Which I have also criticized.

You didn't call them "fantastically stupid", did you?

I would have a lot more respect for you if you could actually admit mistakes - like this thread. But you refuse, which puts you on the same level in some ways as those you criticize from your peer-reviewed pedestal.