You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Climate change is a hoax
Climate change is observed by all available data and anthropogenic contributions are statistically significant. Your views are contrary to the data.
Climate change is observed by all available data and anthropogenic contributions are statistically significant. Your views are contrary to the data.
I used established data to back my views up. I dont oppose the notion that temperatures are rising, I am saying that it is not as dangerous and unusual as the establishment and media make it out to be.
I am also very good with numbers, I would appreciate if you would point to any data that suggests Im wrong. Im always willing to change my mind.
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.
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.
I'd recommend you read up on the basics of climate change - https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/. Your post reveals that you have a very limited understanding of the phenomenon.
Fortunately, scientific consensus doesn't care about what you, I or anyone thinks. Anthropogenic climate change is happening according to statistically significant data, any opinion is irrelevant.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
It is an existential threat to the homo sapiens, and other species, however, when a political leader is ignorant.
Consesus about speculations does not make them true.
I will make a follow up post on the topic about climate change data and data in general. It is to long for the comment section.
Thanks for getting involved in the discussion. It is healthy to disagree. I would have preferred if you were a little bit more concrete in your claims, though ;)
There's no scope for disagreement. If you can't accept scientific consensus, you have to learn how to clear your mental blocks and do so. I don't make any claim, but please see here, like I linked above - https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
PS: If, however, you have made a groundbreaking discovery that will reverse scientific consensus, please do publish your findings. The world will stand corrected when you win the Nobel Prize.
no, I have participated in many different scientific discussions and it should be recommended to not accept the scientific consensus to truly form an opinion. It is what people in the science community call "critical thinking".
Your link contains a list of institutions saying "Climate change is a problem" on a side not you often see "human activities" or similar formulations, that means in actual language that they dont believe C02 is the main cause.
You did not present any scientific argument against my post, you presented scientific opinions. I can discuss those, but I need a few pages for that and I will do so as post. I will note you when its done (expect sunday)
Wow, you exhibit a startling dose of confirmation bias. It almost seems like you're reading a different page :)
Like I said above, if you have made a groundbreaking discovery that will reverse scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change, please tag me. I will then stand corrected when you win the Nobel Prize, as a discovery of this magnitude would merit. Otherwise, don't bother notifying me. All the best with your propaganda!
Scientific consensus from a bunch of scientists all being paid by the same elites - you are kidding aren't you @liberosist.
In the 70s it was 'global cooling', by the 90s it was global warming, now it is 'climate change'. This same elitist dogma was being forced onto the working man back in the 1920s and 30s.
It is all bullshit. You have been brainwashed. Wake-up.
SirKnight.
As a matter of fact, climate scientists are working in over 200 countries, from completely different walks of lives. These countries are at odds with each other, but all of them converge on this very urgent matter. Except the USA and Syria, anyway. Hardly "the same elites", either way. Unless you mean the entire world is running a global conspiracy. At which point, I'd suggest you are the conspiracy - Occam's razor.
None of the conjectures you mentioned ever formed consensus, or even close to it.
now, I feel like bringing the bouncer to the party, pls be civil with those guys. It is my comment sections after all.
Remember 0.003 value in my vote and counting >:D
Thanks, mate! I mean calling it propaganda is a little hypocritical if you link nasa government sources, especially when I say that those people peddling it too hard raised my concerns in the first place.
I actually really appreciate you disagreeing with me. Its more fun to write a text that has to convince someone. One Nobel Prize is too common folks for me, can you win two categories in the same year?
If you have a great distrust of government organizations, I'd link you to this meta-analysis instead - http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Occam's razor - "Peddling too hard" because it's a bonafide existential threat to the human species. Climate scientists from around the world in various walks of life have overwhelming data have formed decisive consensus on this matter.
Like I said, this is not a matter of disagreement. You don't provide anything to disagree with. Your data in this post is solid, it's simply a matter of you misunderstanding two different phenomena.
BURN
97%, one of those magic numbers that indicate a lot of crap is about to spew forth.
justtryme, If you can look past your biases, watch this video.
"if you can look past your biases" get real. I am not biassed, towards anything but data.