Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Troy

Is Man Made Climate Change Fact or Fiction?

Recommended Posts

Troy    982

Editor's Note: This conversation is being continued here because it was a dramatic digression from the subject where it picked up, "Another Controversial Time Magazine or Can Black Women Catch a Break"


Del, the definition of what you wrote about my response was "dismissive." Why do you get away with being dismissive?

Del you understand is statistics, no one has disputed it all called that into question, what I've called into question is your knowledge about climate, a subject you have neither asserted or demonstrated, detailed knowledge of.  Am I wrong about that?

Statistics is a tool, like a hammer, nothing more. Understanding how to use a hammer does not make you an architect.

You wrote, "...35 years of temperature is NOT climate." Who said it was? There are places on the earth where temperatures are going down. The average global temperature can be misleading. The problem is the global climate is changing more rapidly than it normally would and the best minds in the world the cats who study and understand the science, better than you I'm sure, say that it is because of man's activity.

Now I'm sorry if I've offended you because I say the scientists who study the subject know a lot more than you. I'm stating a fact, if facts offend you I'm sorry to learn that.  Again this is a surprising revelation.

Please answer this question: Why @Delano, do you believe you know more about the causes of climate change than the preponderance of Ph.D.s whose profession it is to understand this stuff?  Keep in mind, a keen understanding of statistics is insufficient reason for these guys now statistics too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391
On 2017-6-18 at 0:22 PM, Delano said:

I only trust Black Numbers!

 

No I mean black numbers, not black scientist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy    982

Del, the info quoted below was from the EPA's website.

The Trump administration, has pulled it down from the government's websites. Fortunately newspapers across the country have republished it (Boston Globe: http://climatechangedata.boston.gov) they understand how important it is for the public to have this information. Whether the public agrees with it, understands it, or accepts it, is an entirely different matter. 

I'd encourage you (and others) to visit the Boston Globes site and read the information they've provided. It is very accessible, written in layman's terms:

"All major scientific agencies of the United States—including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—agree that climate change is occurring and that humans are contributing to it. In the 2014 National Climate Assessment, the Global Change Research Program concluded that "global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels."[1] Hundreds of independent and governmental scientific organizations have released similar statements, both in the United States and worldwide.[1][2][3]Multiple analyses of peer-reviewed science literature have repeatedly shown that more than 97 percent of scientists in the field agree that the world is unequivocally warming, and that human activity is the primary cause.[3] "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

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? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy    982

Del, As you know I have an MBA and a graduate degree in Engineering, I can read the graphs.  I thought that was obvious.

Del here is a direct question for you: Why do you think that I would consider the two graphs presented and your simple explanation sufficient proof for me to reject the assessments of NASA, the NOAA, and the consensus of the entire Global scientific community? That is a big ask Bruh.

In fact, 45's position on the issue is sufficient for me to believe in man-made climate change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy    982

Del you asked if I could read the graphs.  I said I could.

Now you want to know if I can "interpret" them.  I'm sure I can't--at least not to your satisfaction. I simply would not presume to base my understanding of global warming solely on the two graphs you've presented.

I already made it abundantly clear that I don't agree with your interpretation. I told you why and gave you details to help you understand why. What else can I possibly write?

Interpreting the graph is completely different than understanding statistics.   I assume you'd agree that someone with multiple engineering degrees from reputable universities, like myself, has a level of intelligence to understand what you wrote and disagree with it.  

Why suggest that I'm "numerically illiterate" when you know that can not possibly be the case?  Doing this sort of thing I'd think would be beneath you. 

Again, I ask you, why do you think you know (and 45 for that matter), know more than all of Nasa? It is a level of hubris that escapes me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy    982

OK Del, so I'm only a numerical illiterate, cool (shhh, don't tell that to my math students). 

You are approaching this the wrong way, from my perspective.  If I'm a numerical illerate, then, by extension, so is the global scientific community.  They have access to all the graphs you've shared and so much more. Your disagreement is not with me--because I don't claim to be able to prove a thing.  Your disagreement is with all of them.

They have collected an overwhelming amount of evidence to show to a high degree of certainty, that climate change has accelerated due to man's efforts.  Nothing on your two graphs can disprove this.  Again, it is not just me saying this is everyone else (save you, 45, a few other conspiracy theorists, and fossil fuel execs).

I just hope folks read the conclusions of the scientific community and vote in politicians that will take action to do something about this problem.  Since our impact on the climate can not change on a dime, the climate will definitely get worse before it can get better. Some believe we may have even passed a point a no return.  

The media have also played a part in our inaction because they have given climate change deniers equal coverage as if this issue was up for debate.  This seems to have changed more recently with climate change deniers being relegated to the same category as "Flat-Earthers."

So while you never said you know more that all of the scientists who study the climate, your position on climate change suggests otherwise Del, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391
17 hours ago, Delano said:

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.

Troy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy    982

Del, OK.  I'm not going to argue with you or try to convince you otherwise.  If the planet's scientific community catches up to you and reverses decades of research and analysis and agrees with your assessment, I'll agree with you too.

 

I just looked at the links you've provided.  The sites supported what the global scientific community has been saying.  Below is a direct quote from the site YOU provided links to (emphasis mine).  I'm beginning to think you are just messing around with me-

"Changes to the climate system have been observed at a global scale, in the measurements of temperature at the surface, and the middle atmosphere, increased sea level, increased sea surface temperature, increased ocean heat content, and increased water vapour in the atmosphere.

Decreased polar ice sheets, decreased global sea ice extent (with regional variation but overall net loss), and net decrease in glacier volumes (with regional variation) have also been observed.

Drivers of these observed changes have been identified as a positive radiative forcing of the atmosphere, leading to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.

Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing. In this regard, human influence on the climate system is clear.

Future global and regional climate change indicate that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy    982

Again, you want me to debate a conclusion that is based on an assumption that I'm not even sure is true. @Delano do I understand you correctly: are you drawing the conclusion that climate change only started in 1980 based upon the graph above?  Please confirm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

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).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy    982

Del it is easy, and again beneath you, to continue making snide remarks about my intelligence as a way for you to dismiss the science. Again it is not me you disagree with.  You are disagreeing with the sum output of the planet's scientific community. I'm only reporting their conclusions--including from a source YOU provided!

You cherry picks lines out of context, to make a point. It is the way some people use the Bible and a sorry tactic.

A conversation not being possible was obvious when I started the thread, Del.

It puzzled me how otherwise intelligent people, with no ties to the fossil fuel industry, could dismiss the science and deny global warming.  Now I, and I hope others, have more insight as to how this is possible. Thanks.

It will be fascinating to see if you change your mind and what you read that changed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mel Hopkins    548
  On 6/17/2017 at 7:23 PM, Mel Hopkins said:

@Delano, maybe i missed something - but I thought this graph was indicating co2 emission is not related to  global warming because it didn't track with the rise in temperature?  and the charts are showing something else is in play? 

 

@Delano, the charts you've posted and what you've stated; indicate to me that you don't believe people (and their subsequent actions) are contributing to CO2 emissions .  I just wanted to be clear of what argument you're presenting.    


It's my understanding Global Warming is a rise in the earth's temperature - and Climate Change is the slow moving "disaster" that has befallen the earth again. 
I wanted to know what was exactly your argument... is it that you don't see evidence of humans and their activities contributing to climate change? ... Do you think Pangaea affected climate change,  as it did millions of years ago?


There's evidence of Climate Change happening now, as it has happened in the past,  hundreds of thousands of years ago after the ice age  is allegedly the reason many of us left the African continent..  we were in search of water  since some places experienced drought and other spots were experiencing floods...   But I too doubt that "industry" and fossil fuel created carbon dioxide emissions had an affect on earlier warming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

@Mel Hopkins I wanted to decide for myself. I thought that I would look at the statistical  model. Since the scientist keep mentioning the projections. I couldn't find one. I looked in reports from Australia, the United States and the UK. Nothing. That was at least five years ago. I had a look the other day. The models aren't shown just their projections and adjustment of the variables. There are about 20 different models only a handful have significant projections. The significant projects are high lighted in red. There isnt one model that has a significant number across all the drivers of weather. So they cherry pick the numbers from rhe 20 models and make that the composite. 

Since I couldn't find the non-existent model.  I decided to create my own. Temperature and climate are different. Getting average temperature is also complicated not just because of location and seasonal differences over time (some regions not only have different seasons the times wuth varying lengths (which makes comparisons difficult )) but there are different ways of taking the temperature: Air, Ocean, ground, high altitude, just above the ground, there may be more but I can't remember. Then i had to read about the drivers for weather: Solar output, Wind, clouds, volcanic activity, again there are others but i can't remember. The hardest thing to predict is wind movement  which also effects cloud movement. There are different levels of wind currents. Which is why you will notice that some clouds are stationary while others are moving at a fast clip. Also Volcanoes  spew smoke that's miles long that blocks the suns rays.

Then i had to find an output measure. That was in use from 1750 to 1980. So i used a few proxies. GDP GNP , i think tried fuel usage but the data wasn't sufficient. 

Then CO2 emissions which did go back to 1750. But i couldn't find the methodology. 

So i created the model. A few things struck me as odd. There aren't any spikes in carbon emissions. The industrial revolution had legendary pollution yet no spike in emissions. Also if it is due to production it should drop when economic activity slows. Even if there's a lag you should see a drop. Finally emissions tracked better to population than production. Which leads me to believe that emissions is a formula not a measurement. 

Recently i found out that all of the projections are based on 1980 - 2005 data. Which may have been altered by GISS in New York  from 1980 onwards. GISS is a division of NASA. 

I believe I also saw an article that said weather on other planets in our solar system was more extreme.  But i can't find that either. 

At the time i tried to present some of my arguments for discussion. People just parroted what they read, without thinking about it. And the people who thought  it wasn't man made couldn't discuss it either. 

I give th same challenge five years later. There are twenty models show me one regression formula.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391
On 2017-6-20 at 2:14 AM, Troy said:

Del, the info quoted below was from the EPA's website.

 

I'd encourage you (and others) to visit the Boston Globes site and read the information they've provided. It is very accessible, written in layman's terms:

 cause.[3] "

Troy I bet you posted it without even looking at the data. Because the first thing it says is some of the data is missing. 

@Mel Hopkins it could be cycles. That are tens of thousands of years long. I don't have that data. My informed opinion is that the numbers don't support the argument.  And using 30 years of adjusted data is not science its propaganda. However we should reduce emissions. Since an ecosystem is robust up to a point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy    982

Del, no one is saying the science is perfect, they point out a potential problem, you run with it a reject the conclusions. That is fine, I'm ok with the conclusion presented in the Boston Globe article and the article you posted (when I actually did read).  Both articles were entirely consistent given the information available and their assessment of it. I'm perfectly happy to agree with the conclusion they have arrived at.  I also read the last article you posted, but I no longer see the link, I guess you removed it. I'm glad.

Del, maybe if you went to Antarctica and collected data on how rapidly it is melting, or if you pulled core samples to measure CO levels, or measured tree rings, or performed any of the myriad other tests to measure climate over time you might arrive at a different conclusion.  But you are perfectly free play weekend climatologist with your limited dataset, knowledge, and experience.  I'm simply trusting the experts on this one.

And really Del that is all it boils down to my trusting the scientists more that lay people in the general public. I understand how an airplane works, but I would not try to tell a pilot how to fly it.  This is one of the reasons back seat drivers, especially the ones without licenses, are so annoying.

It takes bravery to stand up for an unpopular position especially when they are in the extreme minority. Sometimes you have to step back, try to understand why so many knowledgeable people disagree with you rather than digging deeper and becoming even more rigid.  

Sometimes it takes more bravery to admit you still may not understand all of the issues to draw sound conclusions.  Stay in your lane bruh and let the pros handle this one ;)

Truth be told, I actually wish you were right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mel Hopkins    548
3 hours ago, Delano said:

 I wanted to decide for myself.

@Delano,  folks don't want you to do that.... in fact, people get extremely nervous if you actually attempt to put in the work.  I'm also leery of cause and effect folks  who swear something happens as a result but  always seem to  miss a step... I told my mom years ago - everything I read about cholesterol and cardiac arrest was missing the link - but big pharma went ahead with their drug dispensing.. just the other day, a "new" study came out and stating the "drugs" are killing people  faster than high cholesterol.  All this to say - I see evidence of "climate change" as the "experts define it but  I flip flop on the cause - with mostly believing  fossil fuels may be causing  climate change but maybe because - we continue to unearth it...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

My lane is thinking for myself. You have made it clear where you're at.

@Mel Hopkins The Big Bang Theory phrase was coined by the Steady State Scientist. Steady State Scientists believed that the universe always existed. The came up with the phrase Big Bang because ot sounds silly and somewhat sexual. The Steady State Scientist were proven wrong.

Why are climate changers so rabid and resistant to debate. Follow the money. 

BTW in mathematics amateur have also made contributions to the body of knowledge.

@Mel Hopkins The Big Bang Theory phrase was coined by the Steady State Scientist. Steady State Scientists believed that the universe always existed. The came up with the phrase Big Bang because ot sounds silly and somewhat sexual. The Steady State Scientist were proven wrong.

Why are climate changers so rabid and resistant to debate. Follow the money. 

BTW in mathematics amateur have also made contributions to the body of knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mel Hopkins    548
21 minutes ago, Delano said:

BTW in mathematics amateur have also made contributions to the body of knowledge.

@Delano even to this day! 

 

"PROOFS are the currency of mathematics, but Srinivasa Ramanujan, one of the all-time great mathematicians, often managed to skip them. Now a proof has been found for a connection that he seemed to mysteriously intuit between two types of mathematical function.

The proof deepens the intrigue surrounding the workings of Ramanujan’s enigmatic mind. It may also help physicists learn more about black holes – even though these objects were virtually unknown during the Indian mathematician’s lifetime.

Born in 1887 in Erode, Tamil Nadu, Ramanujan was self-taught and worked in almost complete isolation from the mathematical community of his time. Described as a raw genius, he independently rediscovered many existing results, as well as making his own unique contributions, believing his inspiration came from the Hindu goddess Namagiri. But he is also known for his unusual style, often leaping from insight to insight without formally proving the logical steps in between. “His ideas as to what constituted a mathematical proof were of the most shadowy description,” said G. H.Hardy (pictured, far right), Ramanujan’s mentor and one of his few collaborators.

“His ideas as to what constituted a mathematical proof were of the most shadowy description”

Despite these eccentricities, Ramanujan’s work has often proved prescient. This year is the 125th anniversary of his birth, prompting Ken Ono of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, who has previously unearthed hidden depths in Ramanujan’s work, to look once more at his notebooks and letters. “I wanted to go back and prove something special,” says Ono. He settled on a discussion in the last known letter penned by Ramanujan, to Hardy, concerning a type of function now known as a modular form.

Functions are equations that can be drawn as graphs on an axis, like a sine wave, and produce an output when computed for any chosen input or value. In the letter, Ramanujan wrote down a handful of what were then totally novel functions. They looked unlike any known modular forms, but he stated that their outputs would be very similar to those of modular forms when computed for the roots of 1, such as the square root -1. Characteristically, Ramanujan offered neither proof nor explanation for this conclusion." From the New Scientist... there's also a movie about this "amateur" called "The Man who knew infinity" 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

Thanks MEl I am familiar with his story. I am currently reading the Man who loved only Numbers.Paul Erdos

 

K. Srinivasa Rao has said,[109] "As for his place in the world of Mathematics, we quote Bruce C. Berndt: 'Paul Erdős has passed on to us Hardy's personal ratings of mathematicians. Suppose that we rate mathematicians on the basis of pure talent on a scale from 0 to 100, Hardy gave himself a score of 25, J. E. Littlewood 30, David Hilbert 80 and Ramanujan 100.'"

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeon    94

“Maybe there's a few Asians sprinkled in here and there, but for the most part whether your believe climate change is real or false.....or if you believe it's real but is caused by man or by natural cycles.....all of your information has to come from White folks to back it up.

Wow! I really don’t know where to begin after reading this incredulous thread. Let me first start by saying I’m stunned to see the inference that somehow there is a “white science” that pertains and centers around white people. As far as I know, there is no color or race to science since it is supposed to be neutral and free of political (and racial) partisanship. Physics is physics, chemistry is chemistry, math is math, etc. And yes, Asians have chimed in on the subject of climate change. In 2015, the Chinese government released a scientific assessment of how global warming has affected and is likely to affect China. The 900-page “Third National Climate Change Assessment Report” was the work of 550 scientists and experts, summing up the environmental consequences of rising greenhouse gas levels and its impact on the environment. Their findings were in concurrence with the….ummmm…”white guys”.

“Certainly there is nothing happening in our immediate environment as Black folks that is definitive enough to PROVE to us that something major is going on with the climate.

Um, what world are you living on? Is the sky blue? Is there gravity? You are living in the physical same space as NON-BLACKS yet you suggest there is nothing happening with black people but perhaps non-blacks? Nothing you know of the climate affects BLACK PEOPLE? OMG! So, you had no idea how “black Africans”, as a group, are probably the most adversely impacted people on the planet by climate change? You did not know this? Ok…ok…

“In other words, to hell with what some of these White people are SAYING...what do you SEE with your own two eyes that God gave you that makes you take any of what they're saying seriously?

Ha! Ha! Ha! There is so much I have say in response to the ridiculousness of the statement above. Considering the depth and the extreme nature of the comment (parody?), it suggests something much more profoundly wrong and twisted. So, I won’t go there. However, I will say this: I never knew atmospheric/physical science, biology and applied mathematics (which includes geophysics, geochemistry, geology, soil science, oceanography, glaciology, palaeo-climatology, biological sciences such as ecology, synthetic biology, biochemistry, global change biology, biogeography, eco-physiology, ecological genetics, mathematics, statistics and computational analysis, mathematical modeling, mathematical statistics, time series analysis, etc, etc..) were “white sciences” that black people should always be skeptical of. I was always under the impression science was neutral discipline due to its empirical nature. Now, don’t get my wrong. A healthy dose of scrutiny and criticism is necessary and in my opinion –a good thing. But since Negroes, as a group, contribute little to nothing to the sciences that I mentioned, you are going to be hard pressed  to find a “Negro science” (independent of nefarious “white science”) that makes the colored flat earth believers comfortable. It’s like concerning yourself with gas mileage of cars while living in an area where there are no paved roads or cars….

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cynique    1,462

I adhere to the simple truism that time brings change, so it makes sense that in view of its history, the earth is going to go through another climate cycle.  

My personal sentiment is that there are other more pressing and immediate problems than global warming. The infra structure of this country, for instance. It needs to be repaired and updated, an undertaking that could eliminate impending danger and create thousands of jobs in the process.  A simple glitch could cause an electrical blackout that would paralyze half the country and create long term chaos. America is crumbling from within.  (And this includes its politics. The Democrats are obsolete and the Republicans are a toxic aberration, -  a threat to the survival of the United States.) And, of course, the racial climate in this country is a man-made disaster that is eroding the inner cities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

@Troy

I can't really take you seriously. I say let's discuss it. You get offended when i suggest you don't understand the graphs. You say you have an MBA and and engineering degree. Then you say you can read it but you can't interpret it. Then you basically say i am not a climate scientists and you don't have any knowledge of my statistical ability. I describe my methodology in setting up the model . The experts have Never posted a model. There are more than 20 forecasts by various agencies. None of which forecast all of the variables of temperature with statistical significance. That is in that 222 page document . I say find one actual regression model. Just one that these projections are based. You say you trust the experts over me. GISS is a NASA branch in New York. Is the source of temperature data. The director has been adjusting the data. And I post an article from Forbes which states this. The article has a quote from Dr John S Theon (check his credentials ) who disagrees with adjusting the raw data. He then goes on to say. That the various forecast are not transparent and they dont show the underlinig data. He also says weather is too complicated to model.

I have no idea of your numerical ability. But based on your statements throughout the years. You cant interpret statistical information.  I am a statistics hobbyist. Who spent  $1000 in 1999 on Statistica a PC software package. In my library i had three different types of statistics books. I tutored statistics for years in undergraduate circa 1982-1986. And was hired by an NYU professor to interpret a study circa 1991. Which lead to a job where I  interpreted a million cell matrix. My  findings on that project were acknowledged by a PhD  who literally wrote a university text book on statistics. I get annoyed when someone doesn't understand my subject matter. And says I'm wrong. 

Take a statistics refresher course check out the massive two volume book How to Present Visual Data. When you think you're ready lets discuss the data. Because the data tells a story. If you are statistically literate. You have data not information. Data + knowledge = Information. So your opinion is an uninformed one. And not capable of critically discussing the subject matter. 

You don't have time to learn statistics. You don't even have time to read my posted links. 

I will discuss regression models with anyone who is competent. Find someone who is competent.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pioneer1    468

Xeon

I actually didn't see your response to my post up there.

I ERASED my initial  post because:

1. No one really responded to it, until YOU....lol.
2. After a few days of thinking about it, it kind of clashes with the theme of the thread and I didn't want to throw shade on a topic others may be interested in.

Having said that..............

It makes little sense for me to argue about White science and scientists.

1. Academically, I'm probably not as educated as you.
2. And I CERTAINLY don't trust White academia and the White scientific body as much as you do....lol.

It's more of a common sense things to me.
I don't place my faith or trust in most things I don't understand, especially when it comes from people with a history of deception and manipulation no matter how big the words they use are or how sophisticated they sound or how smart they claim to be or actually are.

I've met very smart people who turned out to be drug addicts, abusers, sexual perverts....ect.

If you believe White men with white coats and glasses are telling you the truth, there's not much I can say to convince you otherwise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy    982

@Delano understand that you invested a lot of time energy and money to master statistics. 

Obviously, we disagree about man's impact on the climate change.

You bolster your opinion by saying how smart you are and how dumb anyone who disagrees with you must be.

I support my opinion my saying you simply can not know more than the entire community of scientists who study the subject for a living.

No need to continue beating a dead horse...

The issue about Black/white science is a silly diversion, and as @Xeon eloquently described makes no sense. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delano    391

You are totally missing my point. I want to discuss the data. That didn't happen.

So yeah this is a good stopping point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×