Statisticians reject global cooling

[ensbergcollector]

Discussion does not mean there is truth to any one argument. The discussion is in the general public only, not the scientific community. The discussion in the scientifc community on global warming/climate change is how bad the outcome will be and if we can mitigate the effects. Science has moved on and the public is just wandering behind.

One side has evidence and the other does not. If people want to hold to a faulty belief, I do not care, but I will point out the flaws for others to see.

If you think I am wrong please come with something that can change my mind, which would be good articles and papers with a scientific standard.

I apologize sir, again. I was rude to you and should not have been this way.

there are thousands of scientists who doubt global warming and you responded that basically they weren't scientist enough for you to count that as credible. so sorry, your statements that you will consider other things just don't hold water.
also, you can't seem to get the point that most of the people here aren't trying to convince you of anything other than the fact that there is very little that is a closed case deal. And don't give me science has proven anything. Science, as much as anything else, "proves" something and belittles anyone who disagrees with them until they find out they were wrong. Then they just "prove" the new thing and repeat the cycle.

[jaybird_1981]

The discussion is in the general public only, not the scientific community. The discussion in the scientifc community on global warming/climate change is how bad the outcome will be and if we can mitigate the effects. Science has moved on and the public is just wandering behind.

This just isn't true. I was at Oak Ridge this past summer and a lot of their current funding is for climate change research and you wouldn't find anyone there conclusively saying one way or the other.

They are still researching if we are the cause and even if we are to what extent the damage has been.

[drtom2005]

there are thousands of scientists who doubt global warming and you responded that basically they weren't scientist enough for you to count that as credible. so sorry, your statements that you will consider other things just don't hold water.
also, you can't seem to get the point that most of the people here aren't trying to convince you of anything other than the fact that there is very little that is a closed case deal. And don't give me science has proven anything. Science, as much as anything else, "proves" something and belittles anyone who disagrees with them until they find out they were wrong. Then they just "prove" the new thing and repeat the cycle.

Which scientists are they? What is their field? How was the question asked? When was the question asked? These are legitimate questions that no one ever answers when I ask. Please stop talking about scientists in general and give me the poll or study. Change my mind.

I will look at your evidence, but I may not agree if the evidence is faulty. If you think my thoughts on the evidence are wrong tell me why specifically. I no longer want to hear that I am close-minded or I just do not understand. Speak specifically.

This article was good because it had statisticians analyzing the data in a scientific way, blinded.

As for proving something else, give me your data. Win your noble prize.

Do you deny all of the advancements that science has given us? I know I would have been dead at least twice 150 years ago with some of the medical conditions I have acquired. Science has saved my life and millions more.

I do not discredit it because it can change minds with good evidence. I applaud anyone who can admit they are wrong and do not cling dogmatically to a belief if given enough good evidence.

Evidence please.

[drtom2005]

This just isn't true. I was at Oak Ridge this past summer and a lot of their current funding is for climate change research and you wouldn't find anyone there conclusively saying one way or the other.

They are still researching if we are the cause and even if we are to what extent the damage has been.

OK, who are the scientists and what are they specifically studying? What is their data? Please tell me.

[jaybird_1981]

OK, who are the scientists and what are they specifically studying? What is their data? Please tell me.

I was just there visiting my wife and we were given a brief presentation where they were studying hundreds of different factors that need to be taken into account about climate change. And explaining how with so many factors it is hard to say for certain what the extent of damage is.

And nope I don't remember any names I was more interested in looking at the super computers in their server room than I cared about a global warming study.

[drtom2005]

I was just there visiting my wife and we were given a brief presentation where they were studying hundreds of different factors that need to be taken into account about climate change. And explaining how with so many factors it is hard to say for certain what the extent of damage is.

And nope I don't remember any names I was more interested in looking at the super computers in their server room than I cared about a global warming study.

This is fine but climatologists run these simulations all of the time. You have to know what data they are entering and how far back their simulation goes.

Rechecking the data to see if you are wrong is what science does to make progress and check itself. It does not mean the scientists really think that global warming is not man-made.

This is a process known as falsifying. If enough of these simulations show that the earth is cooling with all of the data, I would have to agree.

Now if their simulation was starting from a baseline of only ten years, there is evidence this might be flawed based on several articles I have seen including this one.

This is what I mean about being informed.

[jaybird_1981]

This is fine but climatologists run these simulations all of the time. You have to know what data they are entering and how far back their simulation goes.

Rechecking the data to see if you are wrong is what science does to make progress and check itself. It does not mean the scientists really think that global warming is not man-made.

This is a process known as falsifying. If enough of these simulations show that the earth is cooling with all of the data, I would have to agree.

Now if their simulation was starting from a baseline of only ten years, there is evidence this might be flawed based on several articles I have seen including this one.

This is what I mean about being informed.

I do know the data was going a lot farther back than ten years but can't remember exact dates.

And just so I am clear most of the people I talked to agreed that global warming was occuring to some extent. They disagreed on the cause and the actions needed to be taken.

[drtom2005]

I do know the data was going a lot farther back than ten years but can't remember exact dates.

And just so I am clear most of the people I talked to agreed that global warming was occuring to some extent. They disagreed on the cause and the actions needed to be taken.

What were their beliefs about the cause? What evidence did they cite?

[ensbergcollector]

give up jaybird. You couldn't find a qualified scientist to convince drtom that the world was round if he thought it was flat. His scientists would be more qualified and yours would be stupid and biased, and didn't ask the right questions, and didn't meet his criteria for proof, etc.


drtom- honest question, yes or no. No need to try and explain anything.
Do you believe that the billions in money being given out and handed out in regards to global warming might lead to a bias in the science? just looking for a yes or no

[jaybird_1981]

give up jaybird. You couldn't find a qualified scientist to convince drtom that the world was round if he thought it was flat. His scientists would be more qualified and yours would be stupid and biased, and didn't ask the right questions, and didn't meet his criteria for proof, etc.


drtom- honest question, yes or no. No need to try and explain anything.
Do you believe that the billions in money being given out and handed out in regards to global warming might lead to a bias in the science? just looking for a yes or no

It is funny you mention this in your last paragraph but that was the exact sense I got was that they did have some bias due to who was giving them the research money