More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made G.W. Claims

Revolutionar

Everynowhere Post time: 2012-7-20 00:52
Considering the nature of the issue, one can't help to feel that climate control seems to be just an ...

There are two issues.
the scientific issues and the political issues.

Why so many rats get involved in the scientific issues of climate change?
What do rats know?
In fact, what do you know?
You seem to have a very shallow understanding of the science.

So, the only thing you have are that the whole stuff is made up by people out to get China or out to get so and  so. The grand conspiracy theory.

In this Internet age when information, correct reliable information is so easily available , there should not be any more rats, or for that matter.......Your opinion that the science of climate change is all a hoax, a conspiracy to get you...such opinion is so ...is so sickening.

Revolutionar

The political issue is that when people are not willing to accept the science,
There will be plenty of excuses.

It is the rats and the deniers who need to be crucified.
Not the people in white coats who have done a lot of work in the last hundred years.

Revolutionar

Everynowhere Post time: 2012-7-20 00:52
Considering the nature of the issue, one can't help to feel that climate control seems to be just an ...

1. Considering the nature of the issue, one can't help to feel that climate control seems to be just another way for western politicians to manipulate their people and other countries (esp. China).

Copy code

Western politicians cannot manipulate any thing even to save their own skin.......let alone manipulate the science of climate change.

Everynowhere

Your opinion that the science of climate change is all a hoax, a conspiracy to get you...such opinion is so ...is so sickening.

So how do you explain that the data doesn't correlate if you detrend it?
Take the data, put a hodrick-prescott filter over it and see what happens.

Western politicians cannot manipulate any thing even to save their own skin.......let alone manipulate the science of climate change.

It's up to you whether you believe everything politicians tell or not. But just let me tell you that agenda setting power tends to be underestimated by most people, whilst its importance can't be overstressed.
Personally

Revolutionar

Everynowhere Post time: 2012-7-20 02:05
So how do you explain that the data doesn't correlate if you detrend it?
Take the data, put a hodr ...

The data makes sense
But only if you have sense to start with.........


As for western politicians.......each and everyone of them wants to see the killings in Syria stopped immediately.....yet,  they are powerless to do it.

How powerful is that?


Each and every Western politician wants to see the Euro crisis go away.....yet the crisis grows bigger and bigger. How powerful is that?



And as for the science of climate change, I don't learn science from politicians.

I learn science from science text books and from reliable scientific literature.

Revolutionar

Unless one is an expert, no body understands what is Higgs boson.
Yet it's discovery which is a work of collaboration between a few thousand scientists did not attract much controversy.

Yet, why so many rats, including yourself think you understand climate change better than Scientific America magazine editors?

Everynowhere

Yet, why so many rats, including yourself think you understand climate change better than Scientific America magazine editors?

Because I'm a scientist myself. Not in the area of atmosphere physics (which, btw, most so-called "climate experts" aren't either), but in the area of statistics and econometrics. And climate change statistics are simply too weak to proof anything.
I'm not saying that climate change isn't man-made. I'd simply want people to not believe everything politicians tell and ask critical questions - for instance, why, if the climate change is man-made, the data doesn't correlate with a positive time-lag if detrended.

I know that this is a rather abstract issue and not easy to understand if you didn't study maths yourself. But consider the following example:
During the past 40 years, McDonald's hamburger sales in the US and and China's economic growth are positively correlated - both have been growing rapidly (even with a positive time-lag, thus this statistical proof is stronger than that of climate scientists). Does this mean that if McDonald's sells more hamburgers in America, China will grow faster? Most likely not. So in statistics, if we detrend the data, we find that the two variables are actually not correlated meaningfully.
This is the very same issue in climate science: we know that temperature abd carbon-dioxide emissions have been raising - but if we detrend them, we can't find a correlation either.

Moreover, even if you find a correlation, you still have to determine its nature: does A cause B or B cause A or does C cause A and B?
That's probably why there's the idiom "never trust statistics if you didn't fake them yourself!"