You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Climate change is a hoax
No, you used very specific data to back up your positions. If you display data in certain ways you can make a case for a variety of positions. It is only the cumulative sum of the data that tells the whole story.
I used data provided by the German wikipedia. The information is displayed in english wikipedia as well (except the 500mil graph), I didnt want to rant again about the difference between english and german wiki. I could have maybe explained more about the natural processes that make climate change rapid. Those processes can also be potentially initiated by humankind.
Still even the 500 mil years graph I embedded, kinda shows how ridiclious established prognoses. To refute them I would need to write a whole new article, but I am willing to do that if you are interested ;)
Except the prognosis is about the current trend NOT the current temperature. That trend is over too short a timescale to be noticing in the plot, it would be a small blip at the end. (Not sure how phone autocorrect got to tonight... But okay)
It's all about the slope of the change. This data is all over too long a timescale. It masks the problem due to presentation. As a result is generates a biassed outlook for people using it who do not know what it's intended to show.
I don't criticize the data, data is data it is what it is.
this would actually be my main argument against it. It is tough for me to put in words, but can you all the small up and downs in the past, not the big ones, the thousands of small ones.
Climate changes in circle and in a general trend, like Steem :D, and the thing they did was use the numbers of a current up-wave to describe the long term tendency.
well... you should! You are criticizing my data. That is OK and valid as an approach. There can be very biased "true" data and even rarely false data. You should always be very critical on conclusions that derive from data/statistics.
“I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself” - Winston Churchill
No I'm criticizing the interpretation of the data you are using (it's terrible), and your opinions (they are predicated on poor interpretation). Not the data itself. It's common among those who deny what is happening, to have no clue what the data they are using means. You are no exception to this trend. Do more research, or even better, have some trust in those who have dedicated their lives to it. "Experts" do generally know something about their fields. I know quite a bit about mine (enzyme kinetics). Climate scientists know a lot more than either of us about these trends.
I am not however, criticizing You personally either. Just want to clarify that, only this one opinion you have formed.
Your argument is that I am uneducated. Your criticism is very personal and you don't present a single argument on the topic other than "the experts will know best". This argument can end any discussion about anything you are not an "expert" on, so it is invalid to me.
No I am not arguing that you are uneducated. I am arguing that you are inexperienced.
same thing. I actually was a tutor for logic and argumentation in college and studied a few years in STEM, dropout tho. Not because radical believes, but because too lazy ^^*.
That's why I was acting insulted. I know very well how scientific debate and political debate work. I think you will be surprised by my next article on this topic ;)
could you be more specific please?
No, never. I am a critical thinker on all topics.
You are using too big a brush to see human contributions. I have already stated that this data is not sufficient to examine current trends.
Look at MORE data, and start putting the pieces together as the climate scientists do. Wikipedia is not a good source for where to obtain it, go Into the primary literature (there's a lot of it).
You may consider your self a critical thinker but you clearly do not understand how to analyze data. Likely due to inexperience rather than lack of capability. Read more, you are making up your mind based on a super small subset of information, presented in a way that is insufficient to draw said conclusions.
I'm not going to point you to specific articles, I don't have them in easy access. I've seen enough at conferences enough times and had things explained enough times by people who understand the complete picture to be fairly confident in the consensus. You clearly aren't, so go digging. What you present here is insufficient to refute well... Anything.
be specific
Believe me or not, but I have seen whole documentations about climate change before. Try to educate yourself on why climate and weather are hard to predict. I can also explain you the ropes of it with my good educational background in science and math, but I recommend professional sources.
Go on pubmed and do a search of the primary literature. I AM being specific.