Delano

@Troy do you really believe that video has answered any of my bullet points?

Troy I am watching the video i am hearing psychological reasons. not statistics. i knew there wouldn't be any statistics. Troy I am not using psychological reasoning. I am using statistics. the statistics don't support their arguments. I am saying they aren't presenting any credible statistics. So you have yet to respond to my bullet points. You consistently side step questions you can't or dont want to answer. Does the video addresses the numbers or Any statement i made. Also i use less resources than most people always have. The whole video is about psychology my statements are statistical. You asked me to listen before addresing my bulket points and the statements about the Union of Concerned Scientists. i await your response. and like you said people are watching. So you can admit you cant counter any if the statistically based arguments. You can say its not as important as solving the problem. Yiu can say I have a resistance to facts. i know no matter what your answer. You will not address any of my bullet points. I challenge anyone to find a statistically significant model that links production to climate change. Thats a big statement and you nor anyone has been able to disprove.

Troy can you stop the monologue. Before asking a question answer the questions I posed to you.

Its a bit arrogant to speak for me and worse to misrepresent my position. To put it simply i have conducted a statistical analysis of the data . I looked at over 200 years of data. The data doesn't match the story. What analysis have you done Troy? Have you looked at and understood the data. Until you can answer yes we can't discuss this rationally. In ten years the temperature won't match the predictions. Why do you think they changed the name from global warming to climate change. Some places were getting colder.

hey Troy how about you respond to the three slides?

Troy if you don't believe in race. Why say a white racist? . I assume you are talking about the white race. If there is only one race you can't be a racist. You aren't being consistent in your use of race. in the implied sense "white" or the explicit sense "racist ". Too means also you should Too or two. I could complain about your gramar and lack of logic. hee hee hee But I won't.

No sometimes you comment without reading the link. It would appear to be money driven. on addition the percentages are misleading. 80% goes to programs. However 60% of the 80% goes to salary.

Pioneer did you read the three slides?

The average household income in Cambridge is about $99,000. So they are paying very well.

They say it's real. The second slide is basically their mission statement. And a synopsis of what they do and how they operate. They say 81% of the funds are for programs and only 4% is for administrative costs . However looking at their tax documents about 60% of the funds raised pays gir salaries. The average salary being 90,000 a year.

Payroll is 18mil divided by 201. Means the average salary is $90,000. And there are no volunteers. That's about $45 per hour.

@Mel Hopkins @Cynique @Pioneer1 have a read and tell me your views.

You are conflating your inability to understand a situation with my reasoning. So I will help clarify the issue. Read the three links from the Union of Concerned Scientists. A not for profit that has the task of combating climate change. The second link states 80% of the funding they receive goes to programs. So that's good. Next I read their annual report. I want to see their financials. There are no Balance Sheets or Income Statements. So I search for their tax filings. Every year they receive $30 mil in contributions. Salaries are $18 mil. Can you do that math? I am posting this for people that are capable of thinking. The Union of Concerned Scientists are making misleading statements and hiding the numbers. That's what these "Scientists" are all about, Troy.

@Troy Do you honestly think it is good science? The answer is you don't know. But you're less likely to believe me then people who have an agenda. I didn't have an opinion until I looked at the data. Troy thats is my whole point. You should question the data and the methodology. it may take another before climate change is exposed.

@Troy you belive the scientist are right. The underlying data says it is a fiction. You believe because you can't analyse the data. You don't even realise they haven't posted the source data. You don't realise they arent using actual temperatures. You don't realise they are adjusting the temperature then using a percentage and using 1980 as the base. I don't have a problem of you being ignorant of those facts. But you haven't checked one of those statements. So I can't take you serious.

When i correct your usage of terms you say I'm technically right. Troy you don't understand the climate change model. I had to explain to you that there's isn't one credible predictive model. It is based only on data from the mid 1980. And they don't use the temperature. They are using changes in temperature. So my post has no errors. Can you fix your faulty reasoning. STOP using terms you don't understand. Your better than that or at least you should be better... Having an engineering degrees isn't assisting you in statistics or logic. Find one credible statistical model that proves climate change. Also how is it you want me to teach you statistics so you can understand what was presented. You can't find one credible model. Nor can you interpret its results. So when you have either looked at the source data or their model and have critiqued it let me know. Otherwise you are luxuriating in ignorance. You have studied much more math than I. The reverse is true of statistics. Or do you believe that you understand statistics better than myself? An opinion can be logically sound yet be false.

Troy when people say technically you are right. They are implying that you are wrong in the other part of your argument or statement. you are equating my disageeeing with you as my being wrong. i am using standard definitions. So your use of valid is technically wrong although it is correct in your mind. i am being stringent. you can use logic or numbers to make a point . However if you're bending it like Wreckum, I am going to call it.

Troy Vanilla ice cream is the best. And if you can't see that you are being illogical and unreasonable. Is that clearer to You. There's a difference amongst the following opinions beliefs arguments. I can have an opinion that is wrong but I cant see why it is wrong.

Troy that's funny. it's been going on for a bit. Its interesting not to be involved for a change. You and Pioneer are more fixed. Cynique is less fixed but will considereal other views. Mel us pretty open until the ither conversant stops either thinking or listening. But it is entertaining.

Troy how can an opinion be invalid? Pioneer has a valid conclusion. which can't be validated. But that doesn't invalidate it.

@Troy read this since you are confusing a valid and true conclusion. Premise: all horses are brown Premise: X is a horse Conclusion: from premise 1 and 2 follows that X is brown However, suppose that X in fact isn't brown, but white (meaning that either X isn't a horse - premise 2 is false -, or not all horses are brown - premise 1 is false). The reasoning leading to the conclusion is logically valid, it's a valid reasoning, but the conclusion is not true, because we started with false premises

Even though I don't agree his argument is reasonable. Man that was a really powerful eclipse.

i dont agree with his conclusion that its a person. yet i think it is a reasonable and logical conclusion. based on his analogy.

Pioneer says someone, which was implies a person. However I don't see the creator as a person. Although that is a reasonable assumption for Pioneer to make. at least it is from my perspective.

Yes I said that but where did i mention the creator as a person