Any morons on here still denying global warming?

[Necrosis]

Crazy? What IS crazy is to pretend that counting CO2 specs in some Greenlandic ice core sample and/or tree rings counts as weather data.

Again, I know you guys are not big on science but... the scientific method works on observation and measurement. These are two tenets you CANNOT work around. And no, correlations or extrapolations of proxies ARE NOT weather data. I know you hate it because you need and want cars/buses/homes that run on farts and pussy juice but... please, PLEASE, choose another field. You're desecrating a perfectly good field (meteorology/climatology/paleo-climatology.)

The people who study this literally disagree with you. I doubt you understand how the scientific method works if you are suggesting ice core samples are observation and measurement. I am not even sure what you know what the words you are using mean tbh.

Since descartes first founded the method there have been substantial improvements to the methodology. Climate is a hyperobject, you can't observe it directly, you aren't making any sense whatsoever.

Odd that you disagree with almost every expert who studies this for a living using such basic elementary arguments that can be disproven via logical argument. Your argument fails both a priori and a posteriori.

Whats even funnier is that you think that the data since the 1850's is direct observation lolololol a thermometer is indirect evidence, you aren't observing climate directly and the ice cores are exactly the same type of data, purely correlational.

All data is techinically correlational. I realize that in grade 12 it was taught that correlation isn't causation but once you get to the higher levels it will be taught that causation is high level correlation- hence the falsifiability of science. Look at the stats used in studies, the alpha levels that detect  "cause" are simply high correlations that make a probabilistic claim (less than 1 percent in good studies, less than 5% in others).

Anything else?

[Slapper]

The people who study this literally disagree with you. I doubt you understand how the scientific method works if you are suggesting ice core samples are observation and measurement. I am not even sure what you know what the words you are using mean tbh.

Since descartes first founded the method there have been substantial improvements to the methodology. Climate is a hyperobject, you can't observe it directly, you aren't making any sense whatsoever.

Odd that you disagree with almost every expert who studies this for a living using such basic elementary arguments that can be disproven via logical argument. Your argument fails both a priori and a posteriori.

Whats even funnier is that you think that the data since the 1850's is direct observation lolololol a thermometer is indirect evidence, you aren't observing climate directly and the ice cores are exactly the same type of data, purely correlational.

All data is techinically correlational. I realize that in grade 12 it was taught that correlation isn't causation but once you get to the higher levels it will be taught that causation is high level correlation- hence the falsifiability of science. Look at the stats used in studies, the alpha levels that detect  "cause" are simply high correlations that make a probabilistic claim (less than 1 percent in good studies, less than 5% in others).

Anything else?

Dude, you're speaking jibbrish, non-sensical innuendo. Since you opened up with "The people who study this literally disagree with you" I presume you're not even talking about yourself, only what you've read and most importantly FEEL very strongly about.

Let me educate you: The climate is essentially an average of the weather. Which means that in order for anyone to be able to make climatic inferences, WE MUST HAVE OBSERVED AND MEASURED the weather data. And to do that, you MUST have a well calibrated and maintained regularly-reporting weather station, not some kid behind a computer running complex regression models. The later IS NOT science, regardless of you FEEL about it.

What's most irritating about this is that we've essentially gone down this road in other fields and it's been shown that they are terribly, TERRIBLY, inaccurate. Take, for example, the 2007 subprime crisis: Data analysts too came up with regression models that showed that bundling up low-grade securities with the AAA-graded stuff greatly decreases the chance of default. It worked until it didn't. And then the science behind regression modeling fucked everyone over and most investors lost their money. Again, this happened because the line between what is data and a correlation of data was crossed and the later was taken as fact when in reality, IT ISN'T. There is NO SUBSTITUTE to weather data collected via a weather station. NONE. ZILCH. NADA.

By the by, Tim Ball, a REAL paleo-climatologist, beat Michael Mann (the father of the now infamous "hockey stick graph") because he asked for the data behind the graph and he chose not to give it to him, so he lost the case. Meaning Mann cooked the data. And that is what spearheaded the climate alarmism bullshit.     

[chaos]

People who claim it's not human activity that is changing the earths climate, but it has natural causes: well, name those causes, and come up with evidence. they can't.

It's a natural ebb and wane of the earths atmosphere, been going on for billions of years. There have been dozens of extreme heating/cooling events and hundreds (possibly thousands) of smaller events.

As a weather fanatic with three regularly-reporting weather stations, I do have something to say: We do not have the data available to make such a statement (namely that there is human-induced warming.) We've only had weather station data since the 1850s for a handful of stations, and a group of stations that can be considered a network for about 70. The rest of the data has been made up. Cooked.

This is a huge issue because the scientific method works on observation and measurement, not on data scientists calculating the missing data. Observation and measurement is A MUST.

Hence, what we are seeing, weather-wise, is most likely all natural. We are currently exiting an inter-glacial period and a warming was to be expected.

This guy gets it ^^ Exactly what I said earlier in the thread.

[chaos]

Dude, you're speaking jibbrish, non-sensical innuendo. Since you opened up with "The people who study this literally disagree with you" I presume you're not even talking about yourself, only what you've read and most importantly FEEL very strongly about.

Let me educate you: The climate is essentially an average of the weather. Which means that in order for anyone to be able to make climatic inferences, WE MUST HAVE OBSERVED AND MEASURED the weather data. And to do that, you MUST have a well calibrated and maintained regularly-reporting weather station, not some kid behind a computer running complex regression models. The later IS NOT science, regardless of you FEEL about it.

What's most irritating about this is that we've essentially gone down this road in other fields and it's been shown that they are terribly, TERRIBLY, inaccurate. Take, for example, the 2007 subprime crisis: Data analysts too came up with regression models that showed that bundling up low-grade securities with the AAA-graded stuff greatly decreases the chance of default. It worked until it didn't. And then the science behind regression modeling fucked everyone over and most investors lost their money. Again, this happened because the line between what is data and a correlation of data was crossed and the later was taken as fact when in reality, IT ISN'T. There is NO SUBSTITUTE to weather data collected via a weather station. NONE. ZILCH. NADA.

By the by, Tim Ball, a REAL paleo-climatologist, beat Michael Mann (the father of the now infamous "hockey stick graph") because he asked for the data behind the graph and he chose not to give it to him, so he lost the case. Meaning Mann cooked the data. And that is what spearheaded the climate alarmism bullshit.   

You're trying to use common sense with a liberal, you're in for a rough ride.

[Necrosis]

Dude, you're speaking jibbrish, non-sensical innuendo. Since you opened up with "The people who study this literally disagree with you" I presume you're not even talking about yourself, only what you've read and most importantly FEEL very strongly about.

Let me educate you: The climate is essentially an average of the weather. Which means that in order for anyone to be able to make climatic inferences, WE MUST HAVE OBSERVED AND MEASURED the weather data. And to do that, you MUST have a well calibrated and maintained regularly-reporting weather station, not some kid behind a computer running complex regression models. The later IS NOT science, regardless of you FEEL about it.

What's most irritating about this is that we've essentially gone down this road in other fields and it's been shown that they are terribly, TERRIBLY, inaccurate. Take, for example, the 2007 subprime crisis: Data analysts too came up with regression models that showed that bundling up low-grade securities with the AAA-graded stuff greatly decreases the chance of default. It worked until it didn't. And then the science behind regression modeling fucked everyone over and most investors lost their money. Again, this happened because the line between what is data and a correlation of data was crossed and the later was taken as fact when in reality, IT ISN'T. There is NO SUBSTITUTE to weather data collected via a weather station. NONE. ZILCH. NADA.

By the by, Tim Ball, a REAL paleo-climatologist, beat Michael Mann (the father of the now infamous "hockey stick graph") because he asked for the data behind the graph and he chose not to give it to him, so he lost the case. Meaning Mann cooked the data. And that is what spearheaded the climate alarmism bullshit.   

oh we have a conspiracy theorist on board. You addressed literally zero of my arguments.

Cores, trees, ocean temps, solar radiation etc are all observable data, you can't be in person to observe the climate, you are making zero sense.

Using a contrarian when literally 99% of the climate scientists agree that climate change is anthropogenic is silly. No other science works like this.

My simple argument about carbon dating disproves your whole idea. You also can't observe physics in the way you are suggest, which is legitimately the most "hard" science.

You also can't collect weather data at every point so it's always correlational. Not to mention weather is  a non-linear phenomenon as outlined in chaos theory. You can't extrapolate it ever, 1 to 1, it can't be done because of initial conditions causing perturbations which cannot be accounted for in advance. At best you can look at attractor basins.

The subprime thing is also a silly argument. You are acting as if there wasn't extraneous variables which could not be accounted for in the models, economics is a human creation as such it involves things that are qualitative which are extremely difficult to capture. The market is far harder to predict then the weather for example.

You clearly have an agenda, I don't, I listen to what the people with the most knowledge say, as should you. You also don't seem to be involved in the sciences by the jargon you are using.

You a financial guy?

[Necrosis]

You're trying to use common sense with a liberal, you're in for a rough ride.

Ya use common sense with something that requires non-linear differential equations!

You are a simple guy aren't you? do you think common sense is what they use in science? lol.

[Necrosis]

for the hockey stick graph silly folks in the back

&t=8s

low and behold there has been more and more data which not only confirms it but extends it. Who would think digging up a greenhouse gas and putting it into the atmosphere at breakneck speeds would cause problems. Seems like common sense.

Germany just had another record day as well. Nice super el nino going on.

[WrongAdvices]

Wait, Necrosis is scumbag bed pan changer ChOak?  It all makes sense now.

Brain fried from Covid lies.

[Irongrip400]

Are you saying we are causing it or just speeding up the process? This world is going to shake us off one way or another, like a dog does fleas. We aren’t that important.

That said, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to be more environmentally friendly and not clog up the air with a bunch of smoke.