You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Climate change is a hoax
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.
the problem about the article you linked: it shows data of the consensus. It does not explain how this consensus was reached.
My main reason for not trusting scientists and specifically the ones you linked when they are making prognoses:
The first sentences reads:
As an experienced reader of numbers I see two things in that statement:
The article I just wrote on the topic.
https://steemit.com/politics/@thatgermandude/my-data-is-better-than-yours-1-climate-change-data-1-the-beginning
Im sorry for getting a little hostile. I would appreciate if you look into the method i chose to approach the problem in my new article.