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?
