The fact that you replied and completely understand the point of my post says it all. No one knows what the climate will bring tomorrow much less in a month or a year. Al Gore is famous for having said around 2005 that the oceans would all dry up by 2015 and now won't respond to questions about his statement. And further a few months after making that statement he bought a $7 million ocean front house in California.
Better be careful about saying that kind of thing. They are liable to show up at your residence in black jump suits, ski masks, clubs and fire.
You wrote the above, Weather is unpredictable Climate is a lot more predictable. Not meaning to be condescending but it is necessary to state the following: prove it!
There is a 97% consensus,
97% of the world's scientists
I'm not smarter than these guys but I am right, and I am convinced that most of them have sold out to sell an idea that is full of flaws, but the forwarding of this idea is full of profit. The last two days here in Michigan the highest temperature has been 68*, that is global warming. Incedentally they have stoped calling it Global Warming and now call it climate change. See; I know what is going on, I just disagree with the so called science."Not be be condescending" was actually Vance's phrase. It's one he uses when he is about to say something incorrect or unsupported, but in a very condescending way.
I'm not parroting CNN, I'm parroting CalTech professor Yuk L. Yung (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/content/yuk-l-yung) and NASA (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus). Back when Time magazine was still publishing speculation about how an ice age could be upon us in mere decades, Dr. Yung's research was bringing us this sort of thing: W.C. Wang, Y.L. Yung, A.A. Lacis, T. Mo, and J.E. Hansen, 1976, Greenhouse effects due to man-made perturbations of trace gases. Science, 194, 685-690.
And yes, I do have evidence for the 97% figure. It can be found here: J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
It is not physically impossible to know what the percentages are. The fact that you cannot fathom such a thing explains a lot of your other opinions. In this case, the 97% figure comes from viewing the published work of scientists who are sufficiently qualified to publish their research findings after successfully navigating peer review. If you are a scientist, or know someone who is one, you know that this is a meaningful thing, and not just the result of having declared oneself to know things, or paid money or received money to say things. It is statistically legitimate to extrapolate that the findings in these peer-reviewed publications are representative of the scientific community as a whole. If you have difficulty understanding how this can be true, take a statistics class. It's an advanced form of that "something called math" you alluded to. If you do take such a class, or ever did, you'll quickly understand why you'll have to excuse me for not explaining the concept in a single forum post in a bonsai forum. The fact that you assumed a 95% confidence interval is necessary to ever ascertain causality suggests to me that you've never taken a statistics class and are simply cutting an pasting stuff you don't actually understand from an unreliable source.
And yes, we all know science does not "work" by consensus, and a scientist's conclusion should not be based upon a consensus, but when scientists, using state of the art scientific methods, are coming to consistent conclusions 97% of the time, that's a consensus that the public can generally rely upon when forming their own world views, and when making decisions individually and in groups. Those who side with the outliers under these circumstances are usually making the wrong decisions.
As to the merits, there has been an abundance of scientific study that shows causation between CO2 (and other gases which we now call greenhouse gases) and warming. This is a pretty good starting point to provide an explanation for someone who is not familiar with the underlying science: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
So tell, me, if you're so much smarter than these guys, or the scientists who run NASA (probably the most sophisticated and accomplished group of scientists the world has ever known), perhaps you can explain for the rest of us unwashed dumbasses where people like Dr. Yung and Dr. Stips and his team got it so wrong.
"Not be be condescending" was actually Vance's phrase. It's one he uses when he is about to say something incorrect or unsupported, but in a very condescending way.
I'm not parroting CNN, I'm parroting CalTech professor Yuk L. Yung (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/content/yuk-l-yung) and NASA (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus). Back when Time magazine was still publishing speculation about how an ice age could be upon us in mere decades, Dr. Yung's research was bringing us this sort of thing: W.C. Wang, Y.L. Yung, A.A. Lacis, T. Mo, and J.E. Hansen, 1976, Greenhouse effects due to man-made perturbations of trace gases. Science, 194, 685-690.
And yes, I do have evidence for the 97% figure. It can be found here: J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
It is not physically impossible to know what the percentages are. The fact that you cannot fathom such a thing explains a lot of your other opinions. In this case, the 97% figure comes from viewing the published work of scientists who are sufficiently qualified to publish their research findings after successfully navigating peer review. If you are a scientist, or know someone who is one, you know that this is a meaningful thing, and not just the result of having declared oneself to know things, or paid money or received money to say things. It is statistically legitimate to extrapolate that the findings in these peer-reviewed publications are representative of the scientific community as a whole. If you have difficulty understanding how this can be true, take a statistics class. It's an advanced form of that "something called math" you alluded to. If you do take such a class, or ever did, you'll quickly understand why you'll have to excuse me for not explaining the concept in a single forum post in a bonsai forum. The fact that you assumed a 95% confidence interval is necessary to ever ascertain causality suggests to me that you've never taken a statistics class and are simply cutting an pasting stuff you don't actually understand from an unreliable source.
And yes, we all know science does not "work" by consensus, and a scientist's conclusion should not be based upon a consensus, but when scientists, using state of the art scientific methods, are coming to consistent conclusions 97% of the time, that's a consensus that the public can generally rely upon when forming their own world views, and when making decisions individually and in groups. Those who side with the outliers under these circumstances are usually making the wrong decisions.
As to the merits, there has been an abundance of scientific study that shows causation between CO2 (and other gases which we now call greenhouse gases) and warming. This is a pretty good starting point to provide an explanation for someone who is not familiar with the underlying science: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
So tell, me, if you're so much smarter than these guys, or the scientists who run NASA (probably the most sophisticated and accomplished group of scientists the world has ever known), perhaps you can explain for the rest of us unwashed dumbasses where people like Dr. Yung and Dr. Stips and his team got it so wrong.
Oh yeah, @michaelj one more quick thing if you don't mind. While I am reviewing your sources if you would be so kind as to correct me regarding my understanding of confidence intervals and statistics in general. Yes I am aware you can tighten the precision but please do give guidance to where I was actually "wrong".
You say, "you'll have to excuse me for not explaining the concept in a single forum post in a bonsai forum." No, I'll not excuse you as you were quick to point out my ignorance. Given that, I would like to be taught so I don't make such blunders in the future.
LOL, it only took you 4 days to Google enough things that you think rebut my background knowledge lol... I will read your sources and get back to you. Do be advised it's pretty well known that NASA is the very organization actively engaged in faking the data. So while they may be smart, they are also dishonest and agenda driven.
I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me so why try?????
I am flattered that you think what I say is important enough to enough people that you think you have to invest time in rebutting what I say. I guess we are going to have a confrontational future.
Falsehoods according to you. I'm not cantankerous I am just aggressive when I defend myself. For some reason, over the years people have found it necessary to make their disagreements with me personal.Only when you try to propagate dangerous falsehoods. Or when you're being particularly cantankerous.
Falsehoods according to you.
I'm not cantankerous I am just aggressive when I defend myself. For some reason, over the years people have found it necessary to make their disagreements with me personal.
@Vance WoodThe main problem is that people who don't know any better fixate on what is presented by Al Gore and Bill Nye. Neither one is a scientist.
Oh yeah, @michaelj one more quick thing if you don't mind. While I am reviewing your sources if you would be so kind as to correct me regarding my understanding of confidence intervals and statistics in general. Yes I am aware you can tighten the precision but please do give guidance to where I was actually "wrong". You say, "you'll have to excuse me for not explaining the concept in a single forum post in a bonsai forum." No, I'll not excuse you as you were quick to point out my ignorance. Given that, I would like to be taught so I don't make such blunders in the future.
Thanks!
I'm not smarter than these guys but I am right, and I am convinced that most of them have sold out to sell an idea that is full of flaws, but the forwarding of this idea is full of profit.
I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me so why try?????
The last two days here in Michigan the highest temperature has been 68*, that is global warming. Incedentally they have stoped calling it Global Warming and now call it climate change. See; I know what is going on, I just disagree with the so called science.
I almost have a degree, just a couple of credits short from a major University and I have a patant and you think I couldn't find by ass with both hands tied behind my back. While we are at it I do not deny the possibiity of climate change. The climate on the planet has always been dynamic and changing. We went from a mini-Ice-age at the beginning of our Country's history to what ever you choose to call it now. Also it must be pointed out that man had nothing to do with that climate change. What I do disagree with is the accusation that the change is due to human activity. I also do not accept the assertion that if we give up all our technology and pay reparations for out past deed we can change it. BULL SHIT.Not just me, Vance.
Yes, for some reason(s)...
For what it's worth, Bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering from an Ivy League school, he's earned a bunch of patents, and he's taken more high level science classes than most "non-scientists." Engineering is a close companion to science, and you cannot be a mechanical engineer without having an aptitude for science. While Nye may not be a scientist, he is a talented communicator of science. And frankly, extraordinary scientists are not always the clearest and best communicators. So while technically, it may be true that Nye isn't a working scientist, it doesn't in any way reflect on his bona fides as a speaker on matters of science.
I like the guy. Having been a double major in a science and in communications, he has a job I'd have loved to have gotten for myself.