Why denialists might not be totally disingenuous - think math

It's easy to think denialists are folks defending some status quo interest, corrupt ideologues or maybe simply trolls trying to get attention. Certainly their inattention to scientific facts and simple logic characterizes their comments and makes it hard to believe they really are serious as to seeking the truth. However I think there is a perspective that allows them to retain a certain sincerity and might instead focus on a genuine bafflement as to the science and methodology.

If you think about it you have to absorb a number of concepts just to get to the point of discussing AGW.

1.First you are dealing with the earth as a whole, not a part, but a whole.

2. Then you are talking about a multiplicity of temperature measurements monitored throughout the world and representing the whole world.

3. Then you are talking about the average of those temperatures for one year as a beginning baseline.

4. Then you are talking about the long term temperature trend of the earth, not short term with its inevitable natural variables.

5, Then you are talking about how that long term temperature trend roughly aligns with CO2 and other ghg increases.

This is absolutely the MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR EVEN DISCUSSING AGW.

What I've noticed from denialists is they are continually unable to meet that minimum standard of understanding to actually discuss the issue. They don't get whole earth, constantly referring to specific regions that are inconsistent with the whole(Remember America hitting those super temperature highs in the 1930s which was brought up ad nauseam by denialists?), they don't get temperature averages or they don't get the base of that average requiring a minimum of a year, they don't get long term trends with variables, instead demanding continually short term consistent linearity upwards. They can't picture how a small amount of added CO2 molecules can directly or indirectly have such a huge temperature effect, I mean come on now, it's not a big mirror or something like that.

If you think about it this criteria for discussing AGW requires the integration of a number of what could be unfamiliar concepts. Quite simply denialists don't seem to have the tools to even discuss AGW and this seems to frustrate them. Thus you have the invention of conspiracy driven hoaxes with world socialists trying to take away their property and their rights. It all becomes about ideology. If you don't understand the base criteria for the discussion you attack it as illegitimate or evil. HG Wells wrote a story called "In the Country of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is King" with a very similar theme.

We tend to think things that are obvious to us are obvious to others but let's remember we are basically big brained apes. There is probably very little in the elements required for a discussion of AGW that was necessary for our survival. It stands to reason that the necessary mental structures for discussing the issue would probably be very unevenly distributed throughout the population. Or who knows, maybe it has more to do with education or culture.

Just a minor example, statistical averages is related to statistical probabilities. We know gambling houses stack the odds against the customers based on their knowledge of statistical probabilities. And yet many keep coming back again and again thinking they can win which they never can in the long term. Does this apparent inability to understand things like gambling odds relate to the same inability of denialists to discuss AGW with reasoned intelligence?

Obviously there is the possibility to take this discussion into many areas but I will keep it on AGW for now.

 

Basic math, any two trended series will lineally correlate with each other on a long enough scale. Advanced math you have to do very complicated mathematics, co-integration, to establish a true correlation where you look at both short and long term correlation.

There is a strong lineally correlation between temperature and the number of pirates in the Caribbean too.

I repeat any two trended series will correlate. That is why you cant do series analysis as you just posted.

Your post is pure mathematical ignorance.

 

Coming from you I'd say that is an appropriate view. But to complete the picture you need to point out that my post is part of a worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth and take away your rights and property.

 

Shut it with your conspiracy theory bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Nobody gives a (*)(*)(*)(*)!

Im an engineer. You are some guy on a forum who obviously failed stat! Bottom line I'm better at stat and systems analysis than just about every single "climate scientists". Its not a conspiracy. They are simply stupid. "Climate Science" doesn't exaclty attract the best and brightest. The best and brightest go into engineering.

 

I will assume that you get the median for 11-6-1 is 6 and the mean is 9. Beyond that based on your posts I'd have to say you handling statistics with clear understanding is doubtful. My guess is the idea of the average temperature for the entire earth for an entire year intellectually throws you as an integrated concept as it seems to baffle most denialists based on their low quality attempts at debunking AGW. Throw in long term trends with natural variability and then matching it up meaningfully with CO2 rise and the challenge REALLY is beyond you folks.

 

Lord I fell on my own petard. Maybe I do need a little statistical brushup. Here is the above corrected.

I will assume that you get the median for 14-6-1 is 6 and the mean is 7. Beyond that based on your posts I'd have to say you handling statistics with clear understanding is doubtful. My guess is the idea of the average temperature for the entire earth for an entire year intellectually throws you as an integrated concept as it seems to baffle most denialists based on their low quality attempts at debunking AGW. Throw in long term trends with natural variability and then matching it up meaningfully with CO2 rise and the challenge REALLY is beyond you folks.

 

No linear correlation is mind numbingly simple and usually wrong! As I said any two trended series will strongly linearly correlate over a long enough period.

Considering I just finished co-integrating a wind farm project output with neighboring combustion turbine output to establish a lagged correlation between wind and spin response I clearly know more about this subject than you.

 

How can one debunk that that doesn't exist. See, you should first prove there is AGW and then give us your reasons and proof, and then that can be tested and possibly debunked. But as of yet, you have nothing. LoSiNg

 

You denialists have had the evidence for AGW offered to you 1000s of times but you chose to reject it and maybe psychologically that is a better place for you to be. Humans came from Adam and Eve puts a lot of people in a better place than humans share a common ancestry with a cockroach.

 

You mean like this?

http://climateknowledge.org/figures/WuGblog_figures/RBRWuG0042_CO2_T_Vostok.gif

 

Look dude, you say you have evidence. But you don't, let go of it. Every link and graph have been discussed and yet still no actual experiment that proves your hypothesis. Without a test/ experiment, you have no theory. Day after day and still nothing. 1000 times, links and graphs with should be's, might be's, and oughta be's, but no actual be's.

 

You've been given the evidence but your ideology won't accept it. I run into guys like you all the time on these boards. Like parrots you cry "prove it, prove it, prove it" and then throw in some garbage about science. When you become interested in the truth you will find it right in front of your nose. Just googling 'global warming wikipedia' will give you more than you need in explanations and graphs. For some reason you flat earthers have a need to believe nonsense. It's not about evidence which is ample but whatever is going on in your head.

 

And yet you still have nothing. still no proof. I have it, I have it, LOL.....LoSiNg

 

Thanks for providing the classic example of why temperature drives CO2 concentration, and not the other way around.

Can you continue to demonstrate that you really do know the facts of the case, rather than just making stuff up trying to pretend that a spurious relationship..isn't?

 

You're right - for you I have nothing.

 

You're one way linearity is noted. You obviously are not ready for Climate Change 1A.

 

I'm pretty sure his meaning wasn't aimed at just what YOU don't understand, lets face it, when the academics and grant chasers don't get it, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect web forum denizens with no experience in top flight industry and engineering testing techniques to understand. Hell, we can't even get those folks to understand why modeling noise is a ridiculous waste of time, and if we got THAT wrong, your cable TV wouldn't work right!! Now THAT is important to "you" folks!

 

I know, thanks for finally admitting it. So you have no evidence to support your claim.......................WiNiNg

 

And what is climate change 1A? doom and gloom with no evidence of any of it. You can have it............WiNnInG

 

The ocean ate my warming? We all need to prepare for Hale-Bop? Out of control plant growth crashing atmospheric CO2 concentrations and causing an ice age?

Whatever it is, someone will be there to tell you how you should vote, collect the tax on whatever the claimed solution might be, tell you how you can live, all the same old same old imagine.

 

Some of the missing warming was discovered in the ocean depths. Got a to give a denialist credit where we can. Maybe it will encourage them. lol

With PP it is always about the environmental militia.

 

And have no proof of any of what they claim. How nice, they think they can just say it. Nope keeps them in a LoSiNg Mode

 

I didn't know the environmentalists had a militia...did I miss something here? Or are you referring to more the eco-felon types?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/10/us-usa-oregon-arsons-idUSBRE9991AN20131010

 

There will always be arsonists. I'm not to pleased with their denialist enablers.

 

I didn't even know that eco-terrorist types had those either. Learn something new everyday.