Posted on 02/13/2022 8:37:19 AM PST by cuz1961
The scientists soon concluded their new calculations had been thrown off kilter by the physics of clouds in a warming world, which may amplify or damp climate change. “The old way is just wrong, we know that,” said Andrew Gettelman, a physicist at NCAR who specializes in clouds and helped develop the CESM2 model.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Validating the lie in one sentence.
Aka Contradicting yourself in 1 sentence.
Aka Admitting and denying error in one sentence
Aka
Bait and Switch Con Job
AKA Weasel wording 801
Aka Weasel, PhD.
AKA
Presuppositional Sentences.
Can you find it ?
The scientists soon concluded their new calculations had been thrown off kilter by the physics of clouds in a warming world, which may amplify or damp climate change. “The old way is just wrong, we know that,” said Andrew Gettelman, a physicist at NCAR who specializes in clouds and helped develop the CESM2 model.
First, they admit their numbers proving "in a warming world" were wrong.
Second, they then use the term
"a warming world"
that aserts as fact what they just admitted was based on error.
This is PhD. level bait and switch.
This is PhD. level weasel wording.
Thus ends today's lesson in weasel wordsmithing 801 , Exp #1
Exp.# 2
“The old way is just wrong,
we know that,”
said Andrew Gettelman, a physicist at NCAR
who specializes
in clouds and helped develop the CESM2 model.
So, here we have a weasel up follow up sentence.
A warming world determined by a " specialist".
A specialist who was self admittedly WRONG !
Not much of a sspecialist I'd say.
Thus ends today's lesson in weasel wordsmithing 801 , Exp #2.
Homework
Deconstruct Exp.#3 Sentence
,,clouds in a warming world, which may amplify or damp climate change.
Find the weasel
AKA Presuppositional Sentence.
Sometimes when you believe you are in control instead of Him, you need a slap down. So, climate scientists answer the following and we’ll wait:
1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.
7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.
This is PhD. level weasel wording.
The solar cycle climate model is 93% accurate at predicting present-day climate based on historical climate data.
No climate “scientist’s” computer model comes close to that degree of accuracy and never will because of the impossibility of knowing and mapping a virtually infinite number of initial conditions at a precise moment in time.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/04/chaos-climate-part-3-chaos-models/
The only reason climate “scientists” don’t use the solar cycle climate model is because it doesn’t give them the result they want; global warming.
They can’t define ‘woman’. You are asking the impossible .
Garbage in garbage out and lack of parameters.
Exactly. The same people receiving and demanding billions in government money for their fake climate change scam are the same ones who say there are more than 2 genders. And they are not allowed to be questioned because it is a religion.
That there also hits nail on head.
The GlowBull climate change policy has always been 'bedeviled', aka Deep State "666" Cabal like.
That's cuz they worship Baal and Baphomet.
"What if there was a global warming panic and nobody came?"
Corrupt, lying Democrat scum.
There was a professor who was a Nobel prize winner, Ivar Glaever, who had a common sense lecture explaining Climate change as a Pseudo Science. His lecture was magnificent.
I believe the science community, being what it is, took him down to promote their agenda.....which equates to...follow the money.
They also ignore the “heat Island effect’ .
Cities with heat concentrating concrete roads and asphalt have grown up around temperature measuring stations. So yes they will measure higher temperatures.
Soon questioning “the science” will be considered domestic terrorism.
There is general consensus that the globe is warming, at about a .1 degree per decade, and has been since the end of the Little Ice Age, so the statement “in a warming world” is technically accurate. The warming is imperceptible and if anything, beneficial to life on earth. It has also been known for some time by CAGW skeptics that the various models of climate change have never accounted for the cloud factor. So acknowledgement of this fact may actually be a good thing. We should applaud more accurate models because if applied honestly, they will debunk the agenda not support it.
The scientists soon concluded that reality had proved their new calculations were just more garbage but they decided to cover it up by blaming it on the physics of clouds.
.
IOW, even the computer climate models say they can’t model future climate.
Extrapolations based on assumptions . . . what could go wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.