Comments 1 - 25 of 25 Search these comments
99% of scientists believe in getting paid to push an agenda.
It's a very small percentage of corrupt and politically connected scie tists who are pushing the catastrophic AGW
marcus says
So, start talking about these solutions. Everything on that list works best with a sustainable level of 1st World population.
Correct. It also works best w low taxation and private innovation, not tyranny.
CBOEtrader saysCorrect. It also works best w low taxation and private innovation, not tyranny.
Ah, the cognitive dissonance shows up: "No! Global Warming can't be happening. Otherwise that would mean humans have created a global problem requiring a global solution pushed from the top, instead of random actions of private individuals. The US gov is bad enough, the UN is tyranny. "
"And also that would mean these atheists liberal satanist scientists are right. Can't let that happen. Damn it!"
99% of scientists have no business or background to even frame an opinion on global warming
theoakman says99% of scientists have no business or background to even frame an opinion on global warming
Common sense should take one far enough.
1) Accept the greenhouse effect as being a legitimate possible or even probable effect of increasing greehouse gases, with CO2's impact being significant (based in large part on what experts who have done the science say)
2) Not knowing for sure how much of the upward trend is an effect of increasing greehouse gases but knowing that the link to solar activity shows far less correlation correlation.
3) concluding that the probability is high enough (but not close to certain) that increasing co2 is a significant causal factor of GW, to make coordinated world wide efforts to move away from fossil fuels in an expedited but reasonable time frame.
You teach math right? What's your opinion on signal to noise with respect to the temperature data on climate change?
to make coordinated world wide efforts to move away from fossil fuels in an expedited but reasonable time frame.
although I guess statistics/probability is involved in understanding how averages relate to "noise."
That is that temperature data readings should distribute around actual values in a way that would make the relative averages (of thousands of temp readings) way more accurate and to a higher precision than individual readings.
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT 'climate change' GRANT FUNDING PUT AT RISK.
"And also that would mean these atheists liberal satanist scientists are right.
Common sense should take one far enough.
Not knowing for sure how much of the upward trend is an effect of increasing greehouse gases but knowing that the link to solar activity shows far less correlation correlation.
concluding that the probability is high enough (but not close to certain) that increasing co2 is a significant causal factor of GW, to make coordinated world wide efforts to move away from fossil fuels in an expedited but reasonable time frame.
You teach math right? What's your opinion on signal to noise with respect to the temperature data on climate change?
theoakman saysYou teach math right? What's your opinion on signal to noise with respect to the temperature data on climate change?
Yes, math, but not accounting or data collection. The only Math involved is simple arithmetic, although I guess statistics/probability is involved in understanding how averages relate to "noise."
MY assumption is that being the 21st century, the sheer volume of data points is such that the averages should be meaningful. I got in a prolonged argument with someone a while back about whether averages can be more accurate and to a higher precision than individual data values. He made a confused argument about something he copied off the internet about experimental procedures and sig figs. I couldn't prove in an argument here, and it's not easy to prove whats extremely obvious to me. That is that temperature data readings should distribute around actual values in...
The idea of an "accelerating" temperature rise is not statistically valid as of now given the current data
The global warming controversy is a dispute over the causes , nature and consequences of current global warming . These disputes are actually much more vigorous in the media than in the scientific community . [1] Most of these theses, expressed in related scientific publications , have in fact been refuted by the well-known mechanism of peer review , which has always accompanied progress and consensus building in the scientific sphere until proven otherwise [ 2].
In particular, the dispute concerns the causes of the increase in the average air temperature on a global level, especially starting from the mid- twentieth century , if this increase is unprecedented or is part of normal natural climatic variations such as the Climatic Optimum medieval and the Little Ice Age , if humanity has contributed to this increase and if this increase is partially or completely attributable to incorrect measurements. Further areas of discussion concern the estimation of climate sensitivity , predictions about future warming of the planet and the consequences of such warming.
The framework of this debate makes a clear perception of the facts to the general public difficult. In particular the anthropic influence seems to be perceived in a distorted way; for example, a survey was conducted on a heterogeneous and vast audience, showing that with increasing technical competence positive responses to the question are more frequent if "... human activity is a significant factor in changing global temperatures on the planet »