Delano

Here's a little tidbit from the report. 9.3.4 CLIMATE DATA Two types of data are delivered to users: • Projected climate changes (relative to the IPCC reference period 1986–2005); • Application-ready future climate data (where projected climate changes are applied to 30 years’ of observed data).

I am going to read the report. And I will let you know if i change my mind. Although either way a discussion isn't possible.

No I'm stating that prior to 1980 temperature was not trending in the same direction as emissions. Troy you aren't equipped to discuss the numbers. It's an unfair argument because. Not because i am smarter than you the scientists or anyone else. Its unfair because people aren't statically savy. And the opposition is to fierce. If tiu want to get an insight on how close minded scientist are search how the Big Bang Theory got its name.

Troy read up on the Industrial Revolution and pollution.

Troy I have analysed the data. Notice that the time frames in the graph matches the study. Also note they start the modelling i the 1980's. There's been 200 years of engines and pollution. Why is there only change starting in 1980. Population. Population matches emissions better than economic activity. I'll connect the dots. The problem isn't production. There are too many people. That's what the numbers say.

Looking at the temperature anamoly notice that up until the 1980's its up and down. Then on the 80's it increases consistently.

Think about this. If its man made how come you have never seen a regression model. Because population is a stronger prediction than economic activity. You can use whatever search you like and you won't find one predictive model. But no one will tell you that you have to find out for yourself. I have gave this challenge almost 8 years ago. @Mel Hopkins let me know if you still have questions. Also see if you can find even one statiscal model showing the link numerically. Heres a model from the Austalian Government. Have a read and tell me what you think. https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/explore-data/about-data/data-availability/ Here are the technical details. Let me know when anyone wants to discuss it. https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/about/modelling-choices-and-methodology/model-evaluation/ I am prepared ro read and discuss any all parts if the tecnical report. Notice how the modellinf starts in the 80's just like i said from looking at the data. Because you can try ti lie but the numbers tell a story. If you know where ri look. I have the time skill and motivation to read and understand the 200+ . It is possible I will change my mind. Since in a two minute scan shows them modelling one 30 - 50 year period. Any rational debate has been silenced by grant recipients.

Troy

I wrote numerical literate. I never said i know more. I say let's discuss the data. I have also said let's clean the environment.

Interpret the graph. Its a direct question for the third time. I am not asking for agreement. I am asking you to think. Not parrot what you have read. @Mel Hopkins can you rephrase your question. @Troy Having an MBA doesn't mean you can interpret statistics. However the graphics are pretty simply for someone who is numerically literate.

I encourage everyone to think. I'll ask a point blank question. Can you read the graphs? Are you going to keep avoiding a direct question?

No I mean black numbers, not black scientist.

Pioneer I thought you just were paraphrasing. Did you have any thoughts before reading the other posts.

So what's the bit you understand? .

My Aunt use to say any man can father a child, but not every man is a good father. Thank you, Mel. Ditto to Cynique.

Yes and our solutions have a degree of independence.

Cynique that's very similar to my solution. I think the solutions match the personality.

Pioneer you are mistaken. Your life is not Life.

Reread the statement. It's a subtle point, that i hadn't noticed.

What Am I asking is to look at the data and use your reasoning ability. You are ability to formulate your own opinion is not in contradistinction to experts. By being able to think either critically or analytically you can understand expert opinion on a deeper level. For Instance being a trained musician will deepn your appreciation for Music. Does it mean you have to like Miles Davis, Prince , Beethoven or Mozart. No you can dislike them but still appreciate their canon of work. I am annoyed because there are experts in various fields that hire statisticians to interpret their data. Is the statiscian that analyzes medical data capable of surgery, not unless they were a surgeon to begin with. Can they discuss the data and it's implication. Yes provided they have some knowledge. I'll tell you a funny story. I was talking with a doctor. I beleive he was a psychologist or psychiatrist and he was doing some statistical analysis. I said cool it is my hobby. I started asking him some question he had no idea about what I was talking about. He is a person that is using statistics , and at the time I was working on a project. Look at each graph and simply write what you think it says. That is all I am asking. To think about information that is being presented. The scientist aren't even presenting data. They are saying we looked and this is the answer. I always like to look at the source data they are quoting, so I can think about what it means.

4 isn't an option. However the answers are informative. Mel's is more social. Pioneer's is a request or demand not sure. Mine doesn't require a social interaction.

I only trust Black Numbers!

I guess for me it is acknowledging the totality of the people I love. Without attaching a value to a judgement so it becomes an observation.For instance my ex wife and I have extreme difficulty having a normal conversation, due to our personalities and emotional history. Yet I offered to help her move. Because she can use the help. It's propapbly the best conversation we have had in years. Because I was ale to see her an her situation. And not make it about my disappointments. Even while I was there and made it a point to be of assistance. And she appreciated that because she knows that I think strategically and despite it all she knows that I am going to to try and be helpful without Ego.

What Am I asking is to look at the data and use your reasoning ability. You are ability to formulate your own opinion is not in contradistinction to experts. By being able to think either critically or analytically you can understand expert opinion on a deeper level. For Instance being a trained musician will deepn your appreciation for Music. Does it mean you have to like Miles Davis, Prince , Beethoven or Mozart. No you can dislike them but still appreciate their canon of work. I am annoyed because there are experts in various fields that hire statisticians to interpret their data. Is the statiscian that analyzes medical data capable of surgery, not unless they were a surgeon to begin with. Can they discuss the data and it's implication. Yes provided they have some knowledge. I'll tell you a funny story. I was talking with a doctor. I beleive he was a psychologist or psychiatrist and he was doing some statistical analysis. I said cool it is my hobby. I started asking him some question he had no idea about what I was talking about. He is a person that is using statistics , and at the time I was working on a project. Look at each graph and simply write what you think it says. That is all I am asking. To think about information that is being presented. The scientist aren't even presenting data. They are saying we looked and this is the answer. I always like to look at the source data they are quoting, so I can think about what it means.

I will reiterate my point about critical thinking an analytical thinking. I was hoping that I could present some graphical information and a discussion could ensue. I wanted to make up my own mind about global warming. So I decided to analyze the numbers. And make up my own mind. I am going to illuminate an obvious point. It is only in the last 35 years that emissions and temperature are moving in the same direction. 35 years of temperature is NOT climate. Just because its not man made doesn't mean we shouldn't be proactive about pollution. You are making an incorrect inference from my position. Open both your mind and your mouth. Original thinking is difficult. I spent several hours trying to get 250 years of data. I also had to understand the different types of temperature readings. And finally what drives weather. Troy you haven't read or understand a fraction of what i have read. And zero of what I have presented. I thought this was a forum for discussion not a dismissive forum . I don't believe climate change is man made, but we should do something about pollution. Just because I don't believe in Climate Change doesn't mean I agree with Trump that we shouldn't curve emissions.