patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,364,663 comments by 15,735 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, stereotomy online now
« First « Previous Comments 16 - 25 of 25 Search these comments
16
CBOEtrader
@
2019 Aug 8, 5:35am
CBOEtrader
@
2019 Aug 8, 5:35am
marcus says
Have you read about the actual problem?
What do we do about sparse data collection at the poles, you know, the areas that are most in question?
What about the changes in processes of collecting data over 100 years? These aren't random changes, we are talking about widespread adoption of new techniques, new technology, and new ways to evaluate the results. How do we even relate data from 1920 to today?
None of this has anything to do w averages.
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.
Have you read about the actual problem?
What do we do about sparse data collection at the poles, you know, the areas that are most in question?
What about the changes in processes of collecting data over 100 years? These aren't random changes, we are talking about widespread adoption of new techniques, new technology, and new ways to evaluate the results. How do we even relate data from 1920 to today?
None of this has anything to do w averages.
17
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 8, 8:20am
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 8, 8:20am
OccasionalCortex says
I would say less than 99% of scientists are corrupt. I would think that at least 20% are moral and believe in the scientific method. Probably a larger percentage.
The problem is the small, vocal, corrupt and politically connected scamsters and their media mouth pieces that continue to spread the compost.
Lies the media propogate include the famous "97% of scientists believe. .."
Can any of you believers list a couple of scientists that believe we only have 12 years left?
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT 'climate change' GRANT FUNDING PUT AT RISK.
I would say less than 99% of scientists are corrupt. I would think that at least 20% are moral and believe in the scientific method. Probably a larger percentage.
The problem is the small, vocal, corrupt and politically connected scamsters and their media mouth pieces that continue to spread the compost.
Lies the media propogate include the famous "97% of scientists believe. .."
Can any of you believers list a couple of scientists that believe we only have 12 years left?
18
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 8, 8:24am
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 8, 8:24am
Heraclitusstudent says
Other than Guy McPherson and Michael Mann can you name ONE "liberal satanist scientist"?
"And also that would mean these atheists liberal satanist scientists are right.
Other than Guy McPherson and Michael Mann can you name ONE "liberal satanist scientist"?
19
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 8, 9:12am
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 8, 9:12am
marcus says
Common sense should tell you if scientists make predictuons with a theory and the predictions fail maybe the theory is wrong.
Co2 caused global warming is a theory that has been disproven by facts.
Common sense should take one far enough.
Common sense should tell you if scientists make predictuons with a theory and the predictions fail maybe the theory is wrong.
Co2 caused global warming is a theory that has been disproven by facts.
20
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 8, 9:14am
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 8, 9:14am
marcus says
Are you are trying to say that co2 has more effect on global warming than the sun?
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.
Are you are trying to say that co2 has more effect on global warming than the sun?
21
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 8, 9:16am
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 8, 9:16am
marcus says
Why has co2 continued to rise and the temperatures have not?
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.
Why has co2 continued to rise and the temperatures have not?
22
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 8, 9:38am
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 8, 9:38am
theoakman says
How can climate scientists measure 2/100s of one degree worldwide average global temperature change between 2015 and 2016? The temperature has risen less than 1/2 degree in the last two decades and has been falling for the last couple of years. A far cry from the multiple degree rise the climate "scientists" have been predicting.
You teach math right? What's your opinion on signal to noise with respect to the temperature data on climate change?
How can climate scientists measure 2/100s of one degree worldwide average global temperature change between 2015 and 2016? The temperature has risen less than 1/2 degree in the last two decades and has been falling for the last couple of years. A far cry from the multiple degree rise the climate "scientists" have been predicting.
24
theoakman
@
2019 Aug 9, 8:04am
marcus says
I'm not questioning the validity of the raw data we have in recent decades. The data is noisy because the temperature fluctuates up and down. Given those fluctations, you cannot statistically make the arguments that many scientists are making because it doesn't hold up to well established standards in statistical analysis. In fact, there is a movement now to get those standards lowered so they can make more assumptions not just in climate change, but in many other fields. The idea of an "accelerating" temperature rise is not statistically valid as of now given the current data. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
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...
I'm not questioning the validity of the raw data we have in recent decades. The data is noisy because the temperature fluctuates up and down. Given those fluctations, you cannot statistically make the arguments that many scientists are making because it doesn't hold up to well established standards in statistical analysis. In fact, there is a movement now to get those standards lowered so they can make more assumptions not just in climate change, but in many other fields. The idea of an "accelerating" temperature rise is not statistically valid as of now given the current data. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
25
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 9, 9:27am
Onvacation
@
2019 Aug 9, 9:27am
theoakman says
Decelerating.
What, short of ice sheets extending down into Minnesota, would convince the alarmists that co2 does not cause rising temperature? At this point the correlation is negative.
The idea of an "accelerating" temperature rise is not statistically valid as of now given the current data
Decelerating.
What, short of ice sheets extending down into Minnesota, would convince the alarmists that co2 does not cause rising temperature? At this point the correlation is negative.
« First « Previous Comments 16 - 25 of 25 Search these comments
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 »