How many scientists really dispute global warming?

Quote from bigdavediode:

Yes, it is a relevant amount of time. In science, we use sample sizes that are proportionate to the time periods to which we're trying to extrapolate.



Actually, I'm not. There's no question that it is overwhelming evidence that solar activity is absolutely not the primary cause, despite global warming deniers' claims.

I am championing the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence and weighing the claims based on that.

On one side there's every single National Academy of Science, NASA, the NOAA, and the CRA. Plus the observational record. Plus proxy data. On the other side there's... quite literally nothing now.
More...

OK so 400 years out of 4.5 billion is a relevant sample? Not to mention that 400 years is generous at best as the actual measurements only began in 1978 and the rest is from a computer model...LOL.

Also, again think of the factors involved that are missing or simply misunderstood. As an example let's say you ran a manufacturing company and to determine the % of defects in your products, you use a 5% sample, you control the system and still need a 5% sample for it to be relevant. Your using a .00001% (roughly) sample of a system (the Sun) that is NOT fully understood, nor are its interactions with our climate, yet it is "overwhelming evidence"???

Just to illustrate my point, what if our orbit around the Sun oscillates over time? Wouldn't that change the temp here? I obviously I can't prove that I am just making a what if case. What if we just went through a high TSI cycle and this kind of heat retention on earth is normal? These could both be logical explanations but we don't know and can't prove it unless we have a relevant sample. Which well...we don't.

Keep in mind that I have no reason to be against this, or be a "denier", except that there are to many questions that can't be answered, and there is money being made on it, so I call bullshit. If proven otherwise I will own up like a man.
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

OK so 400 years out of 4.5 billion is a relevant sample? Not to mention that 400 years is generous at best as the actual measurements only began in 1978 and the rest is from a computer model...LOL.

Also, again think of the factors involved that are missing or simply misunderstood. As an example let's say you ran a manufacturing company and to determine the % of defects in your products, you use a 5% sample, you control the system and still need a 5% sample for it to be relevant. Your using a .00001% (roughly) sample of a system (the Sun) that is NOT fully understood, nor are its interactions with our climate, yet it is "overwhelming evidence"???

Just to illustrate my point, what if our orbit around the Sun oscillates over time? Wouldn't that change the temp here? I obviously I can't prove that I am just making a what if case. What if we just went through a high TSI cycle and this kind of heat retention on earth is normal? These could both be logical explanations but we don't know and can't prove it unless we have a relevant sample. Which well...we don't.

Keep in mind that I have no reason to be against this, or be a "denier", except that there are to many questions that can't be answered, and there is money being made on it, so I call bullshit. If proven otherwise I will own up like a man.
More...

A well thought out, reasoned response. You sure you're in the right place?:D
 
Quote from drjekyllus:

Dave you are not a scientist. You do not even understand the scientific method. Please do not make the statement "In science, we use sample......." as if you are actually part of the scientific community.
More...

I know you'd prefer to discuss anything except the issue, but what sample sizes are appropriate?

You guys are knowledgeable about the markets. Let's say you wanted to forecast tomorrow's close.

How much historical data would you require? Using the proportions suggested above, (100 million years required to forecast 100 years) you'd require one million days or 2,737 years of data to estimate tomorrow's close.

When put in terms of the markets, everyone can easily see how silly this is.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

I know you'd prefer to discuss anything except the issue, but what sample sizes are appropriate?

You guys are knowledgeable about the markets. Let's say you wanted to forecast tomorrow's close.

How much historical data would you require? Using the proportions suggested above, (100 million years required to forecast 100 years) you'd require one million days or 2,737 years of data to estimate tomorrow's close.

When put in terms of the markets, everyone can easily see how silly this is.
More...

And you would still be guessing, which is precisely the point you struggle to grasp. What you climate cultists are trying to do is predict the exact temperature somewhere out in the future, which I agree with you is silly.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

I know you'd prefer to discuss anything except the issue, but what sample sizes are appropriate?

You guys are knowledgeable about the markets. Let's say you wanted to forecast tomorrow's close.

How much historical data would you require? Using the proportions suggested above, (100 million years required to forecast 100 years) you'd require one million days or 2,737 years of data to estimate tomorrow's close.

When put in terms of the markets, everyone can easily see how silly this is.
More...

I didn't mention any proportions to make a forecast. I simply said that u are using an INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DATA (%wise) from the entire population which we know exists, but hasn't been recorded. In other words you are basing your entire prediction only on what u have and not all the relevant data (because u don't have it.)

Your market analogy is wrong, even if you were to undertake such a foolish activity of trying to predict the market's close tomorrow, u only have 200 years of data, that is your population and you need a certain % of it for a relevant sample (not more than u have). Also it is all recorded and still will not yield u any type of adequate forecast because the market is NOT determined solely by math, but also by human nature. Likewise, the universe and solar system and our climate are not determined solely by statistics based on inadequate data, but by forces of nature and variables not yet fully understood.

The whole subject of prediction is so ridiculously unscientific (especially when all relevant factors aren't known) that it may as well be mysticism. I mean meteorologists are part of the "hard" science of climatology, yet they don't even know the weather right outside their studios sometimes... seriously they can't predict shit, even when it is right on their doppler radar, or whatever its called.

Look pollution is obviously not good for us or the planet, and I'm all for practical solutions to cut it back. But the people touting this fake evidence think we can/should just shut down our economy and stop eating burgers because THEY ARE MAKING MONEY OFF OF IT.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

And you would still be guessing, which is precisely the point you struggle to grasp. What you climate cultists are trying to do is predict the exact temperature somewhere out in the future, which I agree with you is silly.
More...

Market prediction is "guessing?"

I think you've now revealed far, far too much about your trading abilities.

Nobody is trying to predict an "exact temperature somewhere out in the future." No. One.
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

I didn't mention any proportions to make a forecast.
More...

Actually, you did. You referred to a percentage of an (irrelevant) total sample size which you arbitrarily plucked from the air (4.5 billion years.)

Naturally you haven't disclosed what percentage, exactly, is the correct amount to predict climate.

Let's say whether I wanted to guess whether or not Spring would follow this winter, and then summer would follow that. How many years of data do I require before you accept that this is a given? One billion years? Two billion years? A thousand years of data?

And please, be exact.

Your market analogy is wrong, even if you were to undertake such a foolish activity of trying to predict the market's close tomorrow, u only have 200 years of data, that is your population and you need a certain % of it for a relevant sample (not more than u have).
More...

Okay, so if a new market opens, such as some weekly option that is new and it's only been open for a seven days, I only need a "certain % of it for a relevant sample."

I disagree. Obviously your statement is ridiculous and utterly silly. I would suggest that you need a sample size in proportion to the time frame to which you wish to extrapolate.

Also it is all recorded and still will not yield u any type of adequate forecast because the market is NOT determined solely by math, but also by human nature. Likewise, the universe and solar system and our climate are not determined solely by statistics based on inadequate data, but by forces of nature and variables not yet fully understood.
More...

Here's my prediction: you won't respond to the required sample size to predict spring and summer -- despite you posting here that these are (correctly) "based on nature and variables not yet fully understood."

In fact, I'm 100% confident of your intellectual cowardice in this matter and I've only had a sample size of a couple of posts from you. Am I being unreasonable? Perhaps.

The whole subject of prediction is so ridiculously unscientific (especially when all relevant factors aren't known) that it may as well be mysticism. I mean meteorologists are part of the "hard" science of climatology, yet they don't even know the weather right outside their studios sometimes... seriously they can't predict shit, even when it is right on their doppler radar, or whatever its called.
More...

First off, meteorologists are not climatologists. Secondly, weather is not climate. Thirdly, you don't even know for certain if a type of radar is called "Doppler Radar."

And your argument appears to be that what we don't understand can't be proven, and because you don't understand none of this can be proven. Which is not convincing to anyone.

Look pollution is obviously not good for us or the planet, and I'm all for practical solutions to cut it back. But the people touting this fake evidence think we can/should just shut down our economy and stop eating burgers because THEY ARE MAKING MONEY OFF OF IT.
More...

I eat burgers. I quite enjoy them.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

I know you'd prefer to discuss anything except the issue, but what sample sizes are appropriate?

You guys are knowledgeable about the markets. Let's say you wanted to forecast tomorrow's close.

How much historical data would you require? Using the proportions suggested above, (100 million years required to forecast 100 years) you'd require one million days or 2,737 years of data to estimate tomorrow's close.

When put in terms of the markets, everyone can easily see how silly this is.
More...

It has nothing to do with a forecast. The global warming folks have taken a few hundred years of somewhat(lets be honest tree ring data ain't all that accurate) accurate temp data and acting like it means something based on the Earths history. We have heard the global warming alarmist make claims such as "It has NEVER been hotter", "there is only 10 years left till we reach the point of no return" and all kind of other bullshit. In market terms it would be looking at a chart for a single day and not having knowledge of any other trading then determining from that one day that the long term trend is up.

When the global warming alarmist hoaxsters make such claims, it really is bogus and these folks have nothing to back up such claims. In fact Earth's history has shown that it has been hotter in the past, it has had considerably higher levels of CO2 and somehow the Earth survived. These leftist have done enough damage to the economy. Its time to stop the charade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top