Well, for one thing you always talk about "exponential temperature rise", but when questioned you essentially admitted that you made that up.
You also rely on simple extrapolation based on past data, even though you should know that that approach does not use the laws of physics and will always fail in the long run.
EDIT: Oops, I couldn't make it through your endless blather the first time, and just answered the question.
Another EDIT in answer to Raisin Caine's comment:
As a statistician, the question you need to answer is are the models overestimating temperature in a statistically significant way? I contend that they are not. We have an imperfect knowledge of the base state and limited computing resources, which means that a certain level we HAVE to parameterize--there is no choice. What you call being "over parameterized" applies more to regression than it does to numerical analysis. Because the models AND the measurements are imperfect, there will be variation that is unaccounted for, that can lead to short-term discrepancies between the models and the measurements. That's why non-physical techniques such as regression or persistence may do better in the short-term, but will ultimately fail as the forcing grows larger.
How can one say about whatever, if you dont show it. WAKEUP CALL= One day I figured out a solution that's called my Triple Output. I emailed to another Nation to help them feed their people 4 times better and when they implemented my solution. It turned off Global Warming. Confirmed by our Satelite reports 11/28/2012= ICE Accumulation after 34 years/ Today 7/7/2014 Ice is still accumulating on earth. When it turned off Global Warming, it somehow triggered Haley's Comet to return to its original mission set in the early 1950's to collide with the incoming so called Asteroid. I receive indirectly from The Hubble Telescope pictures of the aftermath showing 10 large chunks drifting in different directions away from earth 13 years from earth. The collision in deep space dubbed THE BIG BANG happened. Actually I know you dont know anything about Global Warming, because my Global Teams from all walks of life told me what it was and you dont know what it is and your so called big brain cant even tell me your solution or what you think of Global Warming that no longer exists. Global Command. I'd show you more, but I'd be bragging.
Hmmmm, I do like sarcasm.
But then I have provided reasons why you are wrong, to no effect.
In fact, sometimes it seems that you haven't even considered that they might be right.
To some extent, your question might be interpreted as, "Should opposing views be equally represented?"
In my view, the side with the weight of the honest science should get more exposure.
It's the same with evolution and Creationism -- the honest science should get the exposure.
The idea that NOAA is supported by the government, and thus can't be trusted is silly.
The CDC is also supported by the government.
The only people that don't trust them is the NRA leadership which has gotten laws passed that prevent the CDC from tracking gun violence at all.
That sounds like Maxx and Cyclops.
Although, Hey Dook also blocks a lot of people.
I have been blocked by Rio, Maxx, Cyclops and a host of others. I would say, however, that it depends on the person. Therefor I would have to choose both.
JimZ: You have to be joking. The hatred of warmers? Have you been paying attention much? All you need to do is go through the list of questions and find many 'skeptics' attempting to get under the skin of 'warmers' by calling them cultists, stupid, dumb, followers, people not able to think for themselves and so on. Heck, you are even one of those that regularly attempt to get under the skin of 'warmers'.
A WARMER is something you wear that allows your body to retain heat by BLOCKING the heat from escaping from your body. If you don't like blocking, then stop talking about it and about warmers, and try asking a meaningful relevant question instead.
Such as: "Why do I have such a phobic hatred of circa 20 thousand climate scientists from roughly 100 different countries, but not a similar hatred of millions of scientists in other fields, even though most of those other scientists have no such hatred of, nor do they even disagree with, the first 20 thousand?"
Note. I readily acknowledge that parts of this satire sometimes applies to me.
Global Warming, Hoax of the century, past and present.
Global Warming is made up to get you to pay carbon taxes to Al Gore.
Now, of course, if you have a differing view than I do, do not answer because I will block you and likely already have.
Further, do not use examples A, B, C, D, or example E, because for some various reasons I do not think these are good examples.
Of course, if I haven't managed to block you and you do give an example, I will block you and provide an update stating some arbitrary reason I do not like that example either.
If no one can show me wrong, then not only are you inherently wrong, because I like to pass the burden of proof onto my opposition, but you are an evil person who wants to destroy society/ the world. And that is true of all who disagree with me.
While you may think that my standards are unreasonable, it is simply because you lack my superior brain power.
I am so totally awesome. YEAHHH ME.
End satire. Now for the question.
Does this satire apply to the warmers, the skeptics, or both???
Show me what caused the Medieval Warm period, and that that cause is happening now.
No one can show that you are wrong about global warming. Only idiots would disagree.
Hi Raisin. where have you been?
