Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Troy

Is Man Made Climate Change Fact or Fiction?

Recommended Posts

No, Del I did not miss your point, I fundamentally disagreed with it.  There is a difference; you keep confusing disagreement with a lack of understanding.

But since you are a cool dude I'll explain;

I did not choose to discuss "the data," because I completely disagree with the premise. What is the point of discussing the two plots you've posted? As I said, I do not think what you've presented is sufficient to understand man's impact on climate, what is the point on delving deeper into what I view as a flawed assumption?

Looking at it another way;

Lets take it for granted that I agree 100% with the conclusions you've drawn from the data you've obtained. That will not change my position on climate change. Do you understand why?

Even if I completely disagreed with your interpretation of the data, that will not prove that I'm right about climate change; besides you'll simply say I'm too stupid to understand the data.

In either scenario, my position does not change.

@Delano, you feel you have discovered something all the other scientists have missed, right?  (that is a direct question).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy I'll state my point. Most people whether they agree or disagree haven't thought about the issue critically.

 

I'll use an analogy to explain the difference. The movie hidden colors. You stated your opinion and what you thought about the movie. You didn't tell me what movie critics  thought. 

 

You are reverse projecting. You have repeatedly said the following that i can't know more than the scientist. You questioned my ability to have an informed opinion. You even said a little knowledge was dangerous. So i stated in detail what i taught myself about weather. And i also bought in expert testimony. A PhD   professor from NYU, The PhD Quantitative Analyst and Head of Research at Shearson Lehman, And the writer of a university statistics book. So I can read statistics, no matter the subject matter. Note that work/project/ statements were in the following areas: finance; Managent Theory and audience participation.  I have only studied finance on the graduate level. You studying engineering and and having an MBA are relevant if you can't debate the material without relying on expert opinion. 

 

In Science there's peer review. Here's another point. Those against dont attack the data because they have a vestes interest. If you were thinking yiu would also realize. That the supporters alsi have a vested financial interest. 

 

Am i smarter than climate scientists or their detractors. The answer is i don't know. I analyse mumbers. And I  think critically and come to a conclusion. I cant tell you how many hours i spent trying to both find data and have some understanding of weather. Also i spent several hours trying to find the methodology and raw data .

Not only have i studied statistics i have read The Visual Display of Quantitative Informatio by Edward Tufte. Which also shiws how graphical information can be misleading.

 

 

Again I am not looking for neither disagreement or agreement. I am looking for critical thought. Which is not the same as saying i don't understand so I'll defer to expert opinion. 

 

You debated Obama effectiveness without using expert opinion you said what you thought. Granted your opinion weren't well informed by political news but you still had a position. 

 

So I am not engaging in a penis measuring contest. I sm doing what i generally do. Ask people to think and look at their assumptions. I have a lit of free time. Not many people have that luxury you don't. 

 

Most people have neither the time nor inclination to think critically. 

 

I have a curiousity do i don't just accept expert opinion. So when it comes to thinkng for myself I am an Omega level alpha. My favourite scientist and or mathematicians are independent thinkers even in their fields. Newton Einstein and Feynmann. Richard Feynmann is my favourite. He worked with other physicist pn developing the bomb. He also solved the Challenger disaster but not following the protocols that NASA tried to put on his investigation. 

He was one if the youngest physicist. But was put in charge of a team of more experienced physicists. He said no these other physicists had more experience. His supervisor said yes but if you think donething is wrong you won't back down. 

 

You can argue an uninformed position a well informed position or anything in between. Quoting experts is neither. 

 

5 hours ago, Troy said:

No, Del I did not miss your point, I fundamentally disagreed with it.

@Delano, you feel you have discovered something all the other scientists have missed, right?  (that is a direct question).

No you have missed my point. It's about thinking about climate change. Quoting others is not the same as discussing. Sure i coykd say your interpretation is wrong. Isn't this a discussion board. Can you independently think about climate change.

 

Read what Dr Theon says he agrees with all of my points.  I had included the link which you haven't read. Troy your a busy guy. You have neither the time nor the interest to put in the hours needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy can you interpret any of the data? Not being able to do so doesn't make you stupid. However not being able to do so and saying I can't does make you stupid. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[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.

 

What this says is climate change scientist not all scienctist. Yet you believe it is all scientists. 

Here's a thousand scientists , that agree with me.

http://climatechange.procon.org/#con-01

 

Here's a thousand scientists , that agree with me. This site discusses t hybrid e pros and cons. 

http://climatechange.procon.org/#con-01

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I analyse mumbers. And I think critically and come to a conclusion."

 

So the presumption Del must be that you don't think the scientists that disagree with you think critically or have the ability to analyze numbers.

 

You actually believe that you know more than all the scientists who have reached an overwhelming consensus because you know statistics. That is deep Brother man, very deep.

 

Del my opinion about some movie does not compare to my opinion about a scientific finding.  One is just my take on how much I was entertained and the other requires some level of knowledge I simply do not presume to have, unlike yourself.

 

As far as Obama, sure most of my opinions are based on my experience and those around me.  People are struggling more than ever. I had lunch with a Brother yesterday that still does not have health insurance-- he said the $169 per month he was asked to pay for Obama care was too much.  Of course, I can go on and on with anecdotes from my corner of the world in Harlem.  Things are still bad and getting worse for poor folk.., so I qualified to have an opinion on Obama's effectiveness.  

 

Again with the science, I'm not pulling core samples, but there are people who do and they tell me what they've found.  I've chosen to trust them, because my critical analysis of the entire situation says what motivation would they have to lie.  

 

What you think is critical analytics is limited solely to crunching numbers.... "To a boy with a hammer, all the world is a nail."

 

Dude you don;t have any more "free time" than I do or anyone else for that matter.  I choose what I do with my time.  I could be crunching numbers to justify being a climate change denier, or I could be using that time to converse with you.

 

I was much less "critical" when Al Gore was sounding the alarm, but more information has come forth and now I'm convinced.

 

Del if you look hard enough you can find communities of people who believe anything, so I'm not moved by your list of deniers. You act like no one else is aware folk?

 

There are millions of people right here in the United States that believe the world is only 6,000 years old and Dinosaurs roamed the Earth with man.  They to have "scientists" that assert this to be fact and they have spreadsheets too.

 

Of course, the vast majority of scientists say the Dinosaurs and Sapiens are separated by millions of years.  Can I can prove they are right--no, but I trust them.  Why? That is called thinking man.

 

@Delano, do you believe Dinosaurs and man walked the Earth the same time?  Can you prove it? Why do you believe what you believe?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep trying to expand the conversation beyond what you think I  believe or know. To think for yourself. I even posted a site where the pros and cons are debated. They are lying just like the oil sponsored reseach because of the money. And when their forecasts are shown to be  all wrong.  For the reasons that I mentioned. I may not be smarter than a while lot of people but its really hard to fool me using numbers. You are asking the wrong question. It's not whether i am smarter? Is my analysis sound? Causality is difficult to isolate. What i want is for you to elevate your argument. Why would they lie is a good question. How accurate are the models? Is there a link and is it static over time? Who are the dissenters? Those are good questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my question is perfectly valid Del.  You just won't answer it because it would force you to consider the inconsistency in your position and beliefs.  

 

I'll presume that you don't believe dinosaurs and man walked the Earth at the same time and that; (1) you have not way to prove it yourself and; (2) that you trust the vast majority of scientists--even though there a few nutty one other who do not believe it. 

 

You want me to explain my belief beyond what I think or know and think for myself.  Well in many instances this is highly commendable.  But I also recognize that in order for me to get to the point when I could legitimately debate the science, would take years of study--perhaps many, and that is assuming I have the mental capacity and desire to even engage in the effort.  Do you see my point?

 

I think the fundamental difference in or perspectives is that you believe you have surpassed the scientists' understanding (or believe they are lying). I simply do not believe I'm in a position to debate the issue.  That does not make me dumb, I just recognize my ignorance and trust those you study the issue.  Would you agree with that assessment?

 

One of the other things that confuse people about this issue is the idea that climate change is being debated among scientist. If 97 scientists agree on something and 3 disagrees there really is not much of a debate dude.  Again the media make if seems as it if is because they have that same number of people on both sides of the issue as if there is a 50-50 split. Del this issue of man-made climate change has been accepted by the scientific community, just like the Earth being round, and Dinosaurs becoming extinct millions of years before man evolved. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All discussions here are opinions and beliefs. When it comes to books and publishing you have an expert opinion. It is your field and you love it. And I probably defer to your judgement experience and knowledge. My field is astrology and the same dynamic applies. Statistica is my hobby. And you reference statistics, despite your mathematical ability you dont have a good handle on it. Years ago you were making an argument using probability. It was wrong. You cant admit that I have a better grasp on statistics. 

 

We met when you were in Graduate School. I worked in the computer lab. 25 years ago.  I don't recall you needing my assistance. 

 

I am not an evolutionist. So in this instance I have to accept expert opinion.

 

I will attempt to explain my opinion again. I don't have an expert opinin on climate change. I also am not a degreed statistician. I have been studying and practising statistics off and on since 1982. Mathematics and statistics are different fields. Engineering and mathematics are cousins. 

 

I am more democratic about knowledge than you. 

 

You sre probably mistaken believing that climate scientist all know statistics. The 97% is among clinate scientist that believe in man made global warming. That percentage is less than 5%. But check that mumber it may actually be .5%. McDonald's use to say there patties were 100 percent beef. Which is different than all 100% beef. So some percentage let's say 70% is beef. And the 70% is all beef. A little thinking will also maje this clear. When you make a hamburger you add seasoning and spices. 

 

I am nit slighting your mental ability i am trying to provoke you to think independently. You don't feel qualified to take a publuc stance because yiu don't know. I don't know either but i can reason and make compelling arguments based on tbe numbers. 

 

Most people have not looked at the underpinning data. Either because of lack of interest,  ability and inaccessibility of the data. That opaqueness is intentional to further an agenda to continue to receive grant money. Although there msy be some percentage that believe what they are doing is yhe right thing. I am always suspicious of self-righteous people. Since they seem to embody the opposite of what they publicly embody. 

 

Saddly there msy be be an expert lurker. Who could explain the errors in both of our opinions. But until that time it is you and I. 

No the fundamental difference is I have looked at the raw data. The rest us opinion conjecture and inference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Troy said:

You want me to explain my belief beyond what I think or know and think for myself.  Well in many instances this is highly commendable.  But I also recognize that in order for me to get to the point when I could legitimately debate the science, would take years of study--perhaps many, and that is assuming I have the mental capacity and desire to even engage in the effort.  Do you see my point?

I said the following before your post. So 

 

You can argue an uninformed position a well informed position or anything in between. Quoting experts is neither. 

You also stated that i don't have more time than you or anyone else. Can you put 40 hours into learning about the data. So we can discuss it or are you to busy. You either skim the links i post or you don't read them at all. Have a read of  the 10 pros and cons of climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del I could spend 80 hours a week doing it.  But I'd rather watch the trees sway in the wind. 

 

Dude quoting expects is an informed opinion. That is how knowledge is usually acquired, someone who knows more than you tells you something you did not already know or explains something you don't not understand.  I don't reject the information of experts.

 

If you tell me something about Astrology and I use that information relate to formulate an idea to someone else that is an informed opinion. Most of us do not create new information, not really.

 

Del I did not need your help in the lab, because I was able to learned WordPerfect, Lotus, and Access on my own.  In fact, I performed the exact same job as you my 2nd semester. (What ever happened to that petite sista that worked with you?) I began to sell PC shortly thereafter.

 

It is interesting you remember something I mentioned about probability from years ago, that you perceived to be wrong.  I wish I knew what you were talking about--I'd be willing to bet I was not "wrong" :D

 

But it is also interesting I remember your apparent confusion about sampling rates but your unwillingness to accept information from an engineer like myself.  Funny that we both remember things like that.  That must mean something.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't understand what you're being told then yiu haven't acquired knowledge. So if you believe that is a fundamental difference. 

 

Did you even read the 10 pros and cons.

 

I'll find the post and comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Here you go, explain how this example is correct. Not how you are using it like a parable, and you didn't really think about the numbers.Or even better can you compute the probability in each example and tell me the name of the test you use to compare two means.

 

           

On 5/21/2013 at 9:50 PM, Troy said:
Pioneer your points all ASSUME that there is indeed a spiritual world.  One could easily argue the opposite using your very same reasoning.

Del, a horse has a tail but that does not make it a mouse because a mouse has a tail.  That aside what is logical about Astrology?

On my 3rd point, if you flipped a coin 100 times and got heads 75 times it would be false for you to say there is a 75% chance of getting heads on a coin toss -- even if you flipped the coin under some tarot or astrologically defined conditions.

The reason is the likelihood of me flipping a coin 100 times and getting the same result, without consulting tarot card or astrological charts is very possible.  Sure you can flip the coin 1,000 time and get marginally better results but it would still not be enough data.

It would be better If you got 10,000 people to flip the coin 1,000 times under the tarot conditions and different set of 10,000 people to flip a coin under random conditions. If you compared the results between the two sets of people under those conditions and found a significant variance you might have something.  Especially if someone else was able to reproduce your experiment and get the same results. 

You can't do this by yourself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2017 at 10:23 PM, Troy said:

 

I did not choose to discuss "the data," because I completely disagree with the premise. What is the point of discussing the two plots you've posted? As I said, I do not think what you've presented is sufficient to understand man's impact on climate, what is the point on delving deeper into what I view as a flawed assumption?

Looking at it another way;

Lets take it for granted that I agree 100% with the conclusions you've drawn from the data you've obtained. That will not change my position on climate change. Do you understand why?

Even if I completely disagreed with your interpretation of the data, that will not prove that I'm right about climate change; besides you'll simply say I'm too stupid to understand the data.

In either scenario, my position does not change.

Wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the problem with the statement besides the somewhat awkward wording? Was it the mouse/horse tail analogy or  the 75% chance of getting heads

 

As far as the second statement, I have nothing to add, for it is clear.  I'm not sure what "Wow" means. The reason for your denial of climate change deserves the "Wow."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del, stop it. Explain the problem with the statement. Is the probability of getting a head on a coin toss 75%. Yes or No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am asking you a very simple statistical question. What's the probability of getting 75 heads out of 100 tails. 

 

A better question is what is the mumber of heads (bound) for a balanced coin. 

Troy the probability of a head is .5 over an infinite number of trials.  However if you toss a coin  100 1000 10000. You may get more or less than 50% heads. So in all those examples. What's the probability of tossing heads 75% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, you brought up something from 4 years ago that you said I was wrong about.  I did not recall the incident.  You found the what I wrote and shared it.  I read it did not see anything incorrect.  I asked you again to tell me what is wrong and you wanna play 20 questions.

 

Since you pulled the quote out of context I don't know what point I was trying to make.  I can only divine from you around about way of answering my questions that you are suggesting that the implication behind this statement is false;

 

"...if you flipped a coin 100 times and got heads 75 times it would be false for you to say there is a 75% chance of getting heads on a coin toss."

 

I can only presume the point I was making is that if observe something you can not draw conclusions about the general case.  You or Pioneer were probably referencing some personal anecdote and extending it to the general population, which is flawed logic but a natural thing for people to do.

 

Again, what did I write that was wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy what's the probability of flipping a coin 100 times and getting 75 heads. 

Or how did you decide 100 tosses and 75 heads. And 10000 tosses. You just made up those numbers. If you knew about the central limit theorem. Which is a key statiscal concept. You would know that you don't need 10,000 trials .

I have given you a hint and you probably still can't see what is wrong with your statement. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude I know that math.  I don't have to prove it to you, because I know what I wrote is correct.  

 

YOU dredged some comment I made 4 years ago to demonstrate that I don't understand the probability of a coin toss.  You've failed to show what wrote was wrong and now you are probing the technical minutiae and grasping for straws  It is a desperation move and entirely unnecessary.

 

I made an analogy and it valid as it stands.

 

Sure I made up the numbers I could have as just as easily said just because you flip a coin once and it lands on heads does not mean that it will always land on heads.  But the would be obvious.  Sometime we observe a high frequency of some event and assume that is the way it always is.  I chose 75 because it may be less obvious to some.

 

Here is my take on what you are doing @Delano:

 

Lets say you are from Ecuador where the average temperature does not change very much over the course of the year.  You go to Chicago for the first time and spend Dec, Jan and Feb there.  You diligently take the temperature every day and conclude that is the weather is the same all year round confident because you sampled a full 25% of the year's weather.  The reasons why this is wrong are obvious to everyone except to you,  

 

You have no concept of how the northern hemispheres get more daylight during the summer months.  All you have is your dataset and a prodigious knowledge of statistics.  You draw comfort and even a perverse satisfaction in knowing something noone else can comprehend. Not only is everyone less critical, and unable to think for themselves, they are arrogant in this position--not even showing the slightest interest discussing your data.

 

When they try to explain why the temperatures vary much more over the course of a year in Chicago than they do in Ecuador, you ask them to prove it why this happens, they say they can't they believe the scientists. You say to yourself, "What naive fools these mortal are..."

 

What is your underlying motivation? Are you trying to prove you are smarter, therefore better qualified to draw a better conclusion regarding climate change?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew you made up the numbers because they don't make sense.

 

Like i said earlier not only can i analyse numbers i can tell when they don't make sense. 

 

That minutiae that your referring to is called statistics.

 

You can't prove  your numbers because they are an inaccurate use of statistics. I told you that then, I am telling you now.

 

Maybe take a refresher course in statistics. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del I believe you are being deliberately dense. That is why the numbers I selected and my explanation of them make no sense to you.  My analogy would be obvious to anyone because the math required to understand it trivial.

 

Continue trying to cloak and obfuscate your nonexistent arguments under the guise of superior knowledge of numbers.  I'm sure you've helped enlighten many others to become climate change deniersers using that tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are funny, how am I being dense when I knew that you made up the numbers. You are avoiding doing the calculation because you don't know how, In addition to me giving you a hint you still can't show and prove what you know. You are right you don't have to show me. I stuy numbers Troy and neither you nor Scientist can lie with statistics to me.

 

One other thing statistics is different than math. You could have use the Central limit theorem. And approximated the answer. You could have reread my explanation from three years ago. You could have tried to figure it out. You even could have take the Zscore and and subtracted the appropriate propabilites. You could have used the Binomial formula.

 

. In statistics you can test a sample a small as 40. It just means that that the normal curve is steeper. Z = x - Mu/(std dev)

 

http://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-find-the-mean-variance-and-standard-deviation-of-a-binomial-distribution/

Once gain I am not trying to convince anyone to be for or against. I am suggesting that people including you think about the issue. And if it is to complicated than make an informed decision by looking at both sides of the issue. I have said this numerous times but I will say it again. Just because I don' believe in man made Climate Change doesn't mean we shouldn't try to clean the environment. I think before fixing a problem it helps to understand the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are being dense because the point was was making was completely lost onyou.  and the fact that I made up and example was perfectly fine.

 

So now you are are calling me a liar.  Does that too make you feel good about yourself?  It does not phase me.  I've been called worse by better ;)  Did you forget I have the entire freaking Internet at my disposal?

 

Your reasoning escapes me but puts you in great company Del, including the likes of "45." Carry on Bruh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy use as much hyperbole as you like but if you use statistics you have a responsibility to not make it up. And pass it off as science. No Troy We are disagreeing because climate change is to important for you to be wrong about.

 

I am glad that you admitted you made up the numbers. However I didn't call you a liar. Please point out where I said you were lying. I am just saying your ignorant about statistics.

 

Yes my reasoning escapes you but I believe I have summed up yours. Climate change is to important to be wrong about. The only difference between me and people that beleive in climate change is the following I use a tenth of the energy they use. For about 20 years i rode a bike to work. Didn;t have a TV for 20 years. Never owned a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?!! Del you are incorrigible.

 

I wrote, "Dude I know that math.  I don't have to prove it to you, because I know what I wrote is correct."

 

You wrote in reaction, "You are avoiding doing the calculation because you don't know how..."

 

This is the definition of calling me a liar.  This is not hyperbole. It is a simple statement of fact. I might even be offended it I thought you were truly malicious with ill intent.  You are trying really hard not to understand my simple analogy and are introducing unnecessary complexity, for reasons that escape me..

 

Del the odds of flipping a coin 100 times and getting 75 heads is possible, but the probability is not 75%,  This is intuitively obvious to a high school student, so understanding how to calculate the probability was both unnecessary and irrelevant to understanding the point I was making. I can't believe you held onto that little tidbit for so many years.

 

At the end of the day I believe man-made climate change is something we need to do something about today.  All you efforts to disparage my reasoning ability, intellect, and honesty are not going to change this. Again we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have the most noble of actions. A 1,5 degree rise in temperature is serious. The data shows population is a stronger link. Which means there needs to be a reduction in population. You would exxagerate using numbers if that would encourage conservation. I think we should use less resources ces. My opionion is different but my actions are similar. I would not question your integrity. But i always interrogate numbers. Brother 

Will the temperature rise 1,5 every year. I doubt it. I hope that i am right but lets act like i am wrong. And stop by so much stuff we don't need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del, I agree 100% on the lets stop doing the stuff we don't need--I don't even care how we arrive at the conclusion it that is the outcome.

I do know almost every major city I visited recently, Tampa, Sacremanto, Altanta, DMV, New York, Charlotte is buried in traffic.  In places like Tampa, everyone drives humongous vehicles all by themselves.  If we changed our collective behavior I think the population would not be much of a factor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i lived in Manhattan rush hour happened three times a day. And each time period was longer. Next to taking the train riding a bike  was the quickest way to get around at least for short distances. It was only in the  90's the Transportation Alternatives' advocacy work statred making inroads. By sponsoring bike ti work week and getting bike laned and bike paths.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually was going to read this until I saw that it was 13 years old and written by a student trying to get a PhD, can you explain why you think this is relevant to the conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A doctoral dissertion that's 13 years old. Fair enough just check and see if the  temperature rising 1.5 degrees. Australia just had some of its coldest weather since the 1950's.

This debate will be like when you thought Cosby was innocent. I  am not smarter than climatologist but I am more savvy about numbers than most.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't go by the change in temperature in a isolated to evaluate on the global impact.  Actually "climate change" is probably a better description that "Global warming" because deniers point to a cold winter or big snow storm as "proof" that made made climate change is not a pending disaster, but merely nature at work. This concept has been communicated to the general public by climatologist.

 

@Delano, rather than looking for articles to confirm you world view (which are easy to find in the age of the internet), try looking for articles from reputable sources that run counter to your beliefs.

 

Did I say Cosby was innocent?  I don't recall ever believing that he never did anything wrong. I definitely expressed doubt given the sheer volume and the extremely delay of the accusations.  Again he is a rich Black man in America and a target as a result.  I definitely had doubts, still do, that he "raped" all of the women that the media likes to promote has.  Did he surreptitiously drug and grope some women, yes that seemly very likely.  but a jury has trouble convicting... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isolated incident. Troy it's snow in the largest hot desert on the world. Say that last sentence out loud and listen to yourself. Well time will tell.

If CO2 is  causing warmer weather, what man made effect  is causing the cold weather. Can you find any explanation. Just one by a PhD. I dont even care of they are a climatologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again Del, these are not my scientific discoveries or revelations but the information that has been disseminated by the vast majority of scientists to study the subject and inform the public.

 

Again, increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing Earth's average temperature to rise faster than it would naturally. This can manifest in aberrant weather all over the planet which could result in colder weather in some locations. Your unwillingness to accept this fact again betrays you inherent bias on this subject.  I wonder why continue to engage in a conversation on a subject where your opinion is so frigid?

 

I previously shared a very detailed article, and easy to understand, from National Geographic on the subject.  Obviously you did not read it, given your request. You can look it up on your own. 

 

I see you going to have to learn this on your own, me telling you is not helping you understand.  Again seek out an alternate perspectives, which in the case it will be easy because it is the mainstream, commonly accepted science, based upon the best available information, not the rants of the fringe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry i forgot you don't have your own thoughts in this. I stop encouraging you to think. When quoting experts is enough. It's not science  though. 

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  

×