Why do so many people deny climate change

[itfitzme]

The central limit theorem is foundation to statistics. It shows that the sample of means has a variance that is far less than the variance of the sample itself. The variance of the sample of means is S/sqrt(n). where S is the variance of the total population. Because of the central limit theorem, sample data can be reliably used to determine the variance and mean of the underlying population.

Global temperature data is, by it's nature, a sampling of the underlying population of global temperature. Because of the central limit theorem, the global temperature record can be accurately assessed.

The central limit theorem is responsible for the IPCC use of terms "likely" and "highly likely". These terms have numerical values attached to them that are specific to the p-value of the statistical tests.

 

[flacaltenn]

The central limit theorem is foundation to statistics. It shows that the sample of means has a variance that is far less than the variance of the sample itself. The variance of the sample of means is S/sqrt(n). where S is the variance of the total population. Because of the central limit theorem, sample data can be reliably used to determine the variance and mean of the underlying population.

Global temperature data is, by it's nature, a sampling of the underlying population of global temperature. Because of the central limit theorem, the global temperature record can be accurately assessed.

The central limit theorem is responsible for the IPCC use of terms "likely" and "highly likely". These terms have numerical values attached to them that are specific to the p-value of the statistical tests.

You have no fin idea whatyou are talking about. The sqrt redduction in vars applies to multple observation vectors of the SAME process. Not a simple funct of time observed New every time. You have no shame do u poser?

 

[bripat9643]

The central limit theorem is foundation to statistics. It shows that the sample of means has a variance that is far less than the variance of the sample itself. The variance of the sample of means is S/sqrt(n). where S is the variance of the total population. Because of the central limit theorem, sample data can be reliably used to determine the variance and mean of the underlying population.

Global temperature data is, by it's nature, a sampling of the underlying population of global temperature. Because of the central limit theorem, the global temperature record can be accurately assessed.

The central limit theorem is responsible for the IPCC use of terms "likely" and "highly likely". These terms have numerical values attached to them that are specific to the p-value of the statistical tests.

You have no fin idea whatyou are talking about. The sqrt redduction in vars applies to multple observation vectors of the SAME process. Not a simple funct of time observed New every time. You have no shame do u poser?

Well, according to his own standards, he's a liar, a pathological liar, a psychotic, a chronic masturbator, a fraud, a scientific ignoramus and he's socially inept.

 

[bripat9643]

Ten minutes and not one actual demonstration of scientific prowness. No definition of the central limit theorem. No ANOVA. No integrals.... Nothing. Easy stuff too.

For some reason, when it comes down to something real, they got nothing.

"Something real" would be actual temperatures from the ocean at all depths from before the mid 1990s.

Just admit you haven't got shit and that your arch Bishop of global warming magic, Kevin Trenberth, is a fraud.

I never claimed anything. You have.

I've demonstrated that your science illiterate.

You've demonstrated nothing.

That would be "YOU'RE science illiterate," not "your science illiterate."

When you go around accusing others of being illiterate, you should make damn sure your post is grammatically correct. Otherwise you will look like a damn fool.

Whoops! Too late!

 

[Vox]

[

To prove any other result you would have to prove that CO2 is not a GHG.

Actually first, you must prove your assumption that molecules radiate in every direction. Got any observable experiment that proves such a thing or are you working from a mathematical model which you happen to believe.....then you must prove that the warmer object then absorbs the radiation from the cooler object...again, any observable experiment or are you once more operating from an unproven mathematical model?

The answers to all of your questions are known and accepted as standard quantum physics by virtually every qualified scientist on the planet. You chose to reman ignorant of that science. Your choice, but nobody owes you a thing in response to your choices.

Among the many learning opportunities that you've been offered here out of pity for your condition is the series of UChicago lectures recently posted by Joe Normal. All of your questions were answered, but you think by ignoring that, by refusing to learn, the answers can be avoided.

Why conservatives think that if they profess ignorance, their dreams of power will be answered, is beyond me. Out of ignorance only comes more ignorance.

you diatribe is a perfect example of ignoramus being cornered by simple questions, to which you have no answers

Bravo, SSDD !

 

[PMZ]

You're proving it yourself without anyone's help. You lash out like a psycho Chihuahua, calling everyone you disagree with all manner of foul names, and then you provide nothing to support your claims.

You're so beautifully liberal!

Coming from the guy that misrepresents the Northern Elephant Seal as being representative of all Elephant Seals, specifically the Southern Elephant Seal used in ocean temperature measurements.

Even if that were true, how does it prove that Trenberth has data to support his magic chart of ocean energy?

He explained in his paper that I posted what data he used.

Closing your eyes does not make things go away.

 

[PMZ]

Ten minutes and not one actual demonstration of scientific prowness. No definition of the central limit theorem. No ANOVA. No integrals.... Nothing. Easy stuff too.

For some reason, when it comes down to something real, they got nothing.

"Something real" would be actual temperatures from the ocean at all depths from before the mid 1990s.

Just admit you haven't got shit and that your arch Bishop of global warming magic, Kevin Trenberth, is a fraud.

Something real would be some scrap of science from you. Some piece of data. Some hypothesis. But what we get is media bullshit with absolutely nothing behind it.

Do you really think that people fall for that like you did?.

 

[PMZ]

Actually first, you must prove your assumption that molecules radiate in every direction. Got any observable experiment that proves such a thing or are you working from a mathematical model which you happen to believe.....then you must prove that the warmer object then absorbs the radiation from the cooler object...again, any observable experiment or are you once more operating from an unproven mathematical model?

The answers to all of your questions are known and accepted as standard quantum physics by virtually every qualified scientist on the planet. You chose to reman ignorant of that science. Your choice, but nobody owes you a thing in response to your choices.

Among the many learning opportunities that you've been offered here out of pity for your condition is the series of UChicago lectures recently posted by Joe Normal. All of your questions were answered, but you think by ignoring that, by refusing to learn, the answers can be avoided.

Why conservatives think that if they profess ignorance, their dreams of power will be answered, is beyond me. Out of ignorance only comes more ignorance.

you diatribe is a perfect example of ignoramus being cornered by simple questions, to which you have no answers

Bravo, SSDD !

I wouldn't have thought it possible but you guys get dumber each day.

One lies and the other swears to it.

 

[P@triot]

This really illustrates the difference between the fact-based conservatives and the propaganda-based liberals:

Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that "95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic". Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: “And your reference is?” Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering “Your reference? Your reference?” Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.

So the climate scam-artist uses the made up (not to mention tired) 95% stat but when asked to provide a source for his number, he can't but falsely claims "everyone knows it's true".

He then alters that number (after claiming everyone knew it was "true") and makes up a new number of 92% but again cannot back that up with a research source. Fed up with having his feet held to the flame for facts, he sits down flustered. But wait, it gets better:

Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.

When the conservative is asked for his source of information, he cites the exact study, with the exact year, with the exact chapter, and the exact section.

Lord Monckton wins global warming debate at Oxford Union | Watts Up With That?

 

[P@triot]

"Something real" would be actual temperatures from the ocean at all depths from before the mid 1990s.

Just admit you haven't got shit and that your arch Bishop of global warming magic, Kevin Trenberth, is a fraud.

I never claimed anything. You have.

I've demonstrated that your science illiterate.

You've demonstrated nothing.

That would be "YOU'RE science illiterate," not "your science illiterate."

When you go around accusing others of being illiterate, you should make damn sure your post is grammatically correct. Otherwise you will look like a damn fool.

Whoops! Too late!

Holy shit [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION] - that idiot [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION] did the same exact thing in this thread HERE

 

[bripat9643]

Coming from the guy that misrepresents the Northern Elephant Seal as being representative of all Elephant Seals, specifically the Southern Elephant Seal used in ocean temperature measurements.

Even if that were true, how does it prove that Trenberth has data to support his magic chart of ocean energy?

He explained in his paper that I posted what data he used.

Closing your eyes does not make things go away.

He listed his data sources, and we have discussed them ad nauseum in this thread. Before the year 2000, he basically has nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

I never claimed anything. You have.

I've demonstrated that your science illiterate.

You've demonstrated nothing.

That would be "YOU'RE science illiterate," not "your science illiterate."

When you go around accusing others of being illiterate, you should make damn sure your post is grammatically correct. Otherwise you will look like a damn fool.

Whoops! Too late!

Holy shit [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION] - that idiot [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION] did the same exact thing in this thread HERE

Hilarious. Did he accuse you of being a chronic masturbator as well?

 

[PMZ]

This really illustrates the difference between the fact-based conservatives and the propaganda-based liberals:

Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that "95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic". Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: “And your reference is?” Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering “Your reference? Your reference?” Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.

So the climate scam-artist uses the made up (not to mention tired) 95% stat but when asked to provide a source for his number, he can't but falsely claims "everyone knows it's true".

He then alters that number (after claiming everyone knew it was "true") and makes up a new number of 92% but again cannot back that up with a research source. Fed up with having his feet held to the flame for facts, he sits down flustered. But wait, it gets better:

Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.

When the conservative is asked for his source of information, he cites the exact study, with the exact year, with the exact chapter, and the exact section.

Lord Monckton wins global warming debate at Oxford Union | Watts Up With That?

This really illustrates the difference between the fact-based conservatives and the propaganda-based liberals:

Fell out of my chair on this one. I think that what he meant to say was political based conservatives and science based liberals.

For conservatives have never offered any evidence, much less proof, that what their politics wants to be true is fact based with scientific proof.

NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

 

[bripat9643]

This really illustrates the difference between the fact-based conservatives and the propaganda-based liberals:

Fell out of my chair on this one. I think that what he meant to say was political based conservatives and science based liberals.

For conservatives have never offered any evidence, much less proof, that what their politics wants to be true is fact based with scientific proof.

NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

You just can't seem to get your head around the fact that we don't have to come up with alternative evidence to show that yours is bogus.

Warmists have the epistemology as Bible thumpers. They argue that since science can't explain how life began that God must be the explanation. The AGW Bible thumpers are just as idiotic. The fact that I don't have an explanation for something isn't proof that yours is true. Yours is still complete idiocy.

 

[Abraham3]

You just can't seem to get your head around the fact that we don't have to come up with alternative evidence to show that yours is bogus.

Warmists have the epistemology as Bible thumpers. They argue that since science can't explain how life began that God must be the explanation. The AGW Bible thumpers are just as idiotic. The fact that I don't have an explanation for something isn't proof that yours is true. Yours is still complete idiocy.

That you, with virtually NO science education, believe the conclusions of thousands of actively researching PhD scientists, working on the same issue for 25 years now, to be "idiocy", only tells us that your opinion on the matter is utterly, and to be honest, contemptibly, lacking worth.

 

[bripat9643]

You just can't seem to get your head around the fact that we don't have to come up with alternative evidence to show that yours is bogus.

Warmists have the epistemology as Bible thumpers. They argue that since science can't explain how life began that God must be the explanation. The AGW Bible thumpers are just as idiotic. The fact that I don't have an explanation for something isn't proof that yours is true. Yours is still complete idiocy.

That you, with virtually NO science education, believe the conclusions of thousands of actively researching PhD scientists, working on the same issue for 25 years now, to be "idiocy", only tells us that your opinion on the matter is utterly, and to be honest, contemptibly, lacking worth.

The logical fallacy you just committed is known as the Appeal to Authority. It seems to be the favorite of warmist cult members.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat-

You really do need to try and understand what 'appeal to authority' means.

It does not mean that the side with no scientific backing wins.

 

[PMZ]

Even if that were true, how does it prove that Trenberth has data to support his magic chart of ocean energy?

He explained in his paper that I posted what data he used.

Closing your eyes does not make things go away.

He listed his data sources, and we have discussed them ad nauseum in this thread. Before the year 2000, he basically has nothing.

As compared to the conservative position which is based on having nothing before, during and after, 2000.

 

[PMZ]

You just can't seem to get your head around the fact that we don't have to come up with alternative evidence to show that yours is bogus.

Warmists have the epistemology as Bible thumpers. They argue that since science can't explain how life began that God must be the explanation. The AGW Bible thumpers are just as idiotic. The fact that I don't have an explanation for something isn't proof that yours is true. Yours is still complete idiocy.

That you, with virtually NO science education, believe the conclusions of thousands of actively researching PhD scientists, working on the same issue for 25 years now, to be "idiocy", only tells us that your opinion on the matter is utterly, and to be honest, contemptibly, lacking worth.

The logical fallacy you just committed is known as the Appeal to Authority. It seems to be the favorite of warmist cult members.

The logical fallacy that conservatism is based on is called blind obedience, cultism, or worship of massive media mythology.

 

[PMZ]

This really illustrates the difference between the fact-based conservatives and the propaganda-based liberals:

Fell out of my chair on this one. I think that what he meant to say was political based conservatives and science based liberals.

For conservatives have never offered any evidence, much less proof, that what their politics wants to be true is fact based with scientific proof.

NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

You just can't seem to get your head around the fact that we don't have to come up with alternative evidence to show that yours is bogus.

Warmists have the epistemology as Bible thumpers. They argue that since science can't explain how life began that God must be the explanation. The AGW Bible thumpers are just as idiotic. The fact that I don't have an explanation for something isn't proof that yours is true. Yours is still complete idiocy.

''The fact that I don't have an explanation for something isn't proof that yours is true''

It's science that you have nothing of. No ability to contribute to solving the problem. It's not proof, but evidence of ignorance.

Our proof is in climate science. The fact that your eyes and mind are closed to it only speaks of you. It has nothing at all to do with climate science.

I imagine that the few primitive tribes left on earth also don't believe climate science and for the same reason you don't