With your post, you prove that you don't understand statistics. Over any short period, data is typically very noisy and trends can be hard to find. The greater the number of variables in the regression analysis, the more true this is. Over longer periods, the long term trends become more apparent.
So when the report says over a 15-20 period the trend is noisy, then that doesn't mean anything. The long term trend is still intact. Do you have any statistics studies under your belt, by chance? Perhaps you'd have more credibility if you did.
that's actually a hilarious response. Especially after I have pointed out that even the 150 years or so that are being used as the foundation of the global panic and spending of trillions of dollars, is a meaningless timeframe when talking geologic time.
The long term trend is not intact, in fact, there is no long term trend. And there's certainly no evidence that their models are accurate over any period of time, let alone a long term.
I made a statement, you said that it was a lie and then proceeded to post information from the IPCC that confirmed exactly what I said as a way to prove that I was lying. You need to make up your mind on what point you are trying to argue.
You asked me why I felt that your statement and even the IPCC's statement was absurd. I made very clear statements as to why I have the opinions that I do. My opinions are based on actual evidence rather than accepting the conclusion of scientists who have been proven to have subverted the scientific method in their research and have produced flawed models that have no predictive value, that politicians have used as the justification to tax and spend trillions of dollars.
You have not provided one shred of evidence that any of my assertions are incorrect. And yet you called me a liar. Your only evidence in believing in CAGW is that the scientists are 95% certain that climate change is manmade. You have made comments about arguing with a religious person about evolution and you cast yourself in the role of the rational person using evidence to support your argument against a person who only has faith in a higher authority as their argument. But in this case, you are the religious fanatic. You are the person who has faith in the scientists and you won't change your mind until they tell you to.
Your words:
I think it's accurate to say the Democrats are the climate faithful. I just go by the scientific consensus. When they change their minds, so will I.
No facts. No critical thinking on your part. You believe in AGW because you have faith in the higher authority of a scientific consensus.
I will admit, it is very difficult have a rational discussion with someone who is so obviously a religious fanatic. |
