midwest1

9 ms·

1.
by midwest1 8y ago
jhan - If you calculate a linear trend from subsets and get largely different results, a linear trend though the entire data set is only meaningful if you have several cycles of data. I would argue we do not have several cycles of data. Al
2.
by midwest1 8y ago
To be fair, the chances of those events increasing in that way are pretty slim, even according to climate science.
3.
by midwest1 8y ago
I wouldn't pay much mind to the public positions of governments, particularly when there's money on the line. Nothing is simple in geopolitics.
4.
by midwest1 8y ago
You could just as well throw your money at any other group of advocacy scientists... say creation scientists. Of course, I am not an actual creationist, so dont throw any money at my belief that the world is billions of years old.
5.
by midwest1 11y ago
Did a scientist tell you this? That is not how science works. You cannot attribute events around you to some notion of obviousness. That reasoning would not pass any physicist's approval. Climate science is predicated upon a proper
6.
by midwest1 11y ago
Many of the sciences do suffer from systemic incompetence, if not fraud. There is evidence that dissent in climate science is punished. That alone is enough for me to pull out the microscope and take the words of minority researchers serio
7.
by midwest1 11y ago
Is this a typical thing on HN in election years? This is where I come to escape, dammit! :) I would give a finger to have an entire forum of people from various technical backgrounds who could have intelligent conversations about various
8.
by midwest1 11y ago
I used to evaluate the work of scientists for the US government. You would be surprised at the rampant amount of fraud in science. To answer your last question, job security. Many other reasons... adulation, professional competition. Gen
9.
by midwest1 11y ago
How do you know they are sure? Last I knew the only real certainty was that CO2 was a greenhouse gas. Anything after that is still not certain at all.
10.
by midwest1 11y ago
The egg-yolks-are-bad-for-you crowd said the same thing for decades. And now we know that the consensus was wrong. It always matters when minority scientific opinion is ignored, or worse, silenced. If medical science gets it wrong, how muc
11.
by midwest1 11y ago
Rather than take someone's word for it, its quite easy for anyone to verify for themselves that the Cook study is flawed. Read the abstract, and understand the premise... As was explained in the above postlink. Then visit web of scien
12.
by midwest1 11y ago
It's also quite easy to verify for yourself by visiting the web of science search. Then one can be assured it isn't a devious lie from the Koch brothers. ;) I would be interested to know why Duarte feels the correct number is 80,
13.
by midwest1 11y ago
I believe the number is somewhat less than 99 percent. If you are referring to the Cook study, the study borders on fraudulent, to be kind. Hard to type using my phone, I have a couple of posts from 70 days or so ago explaining my problem
14.
by midwest1 11y ago
Forgive me, I'm doing my best to stay above board. This is not an attack... You misunderstand me. I think that 11944 was too many papers, and should be narrowed down to papers by hard scientists. I'm saying out of those 11944, a
15.
by midwest1 11y ago
I read this study earlier. Searching the Consensus Project from Skeptical Science shows papers such as: "Gruber, E., & Brand, M. (1991). Promoting energy conservation in small and medium-sized companies. Energy Policy, 19(3), 279–2
16.
by midwest1 11y ago
The term consensus seems... polluted. The scientific consensus refers to the number of scientists that believe in anthro-climate change, but not the number of scientists who actually study climate change detection and its relation to greenh
17.
by midwest1 11y ago
I used to agree with your characterization. Most global warming deniers do not understand the nature of climate change. I do like to get all sides of a debate, unless of course the debate includes your average Trump voter. There are a min
18.
by midwest1 11y ago
Judith Curry had something to say about the NASA data as well. I find her analysis quite level-headed. http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/16/warmest-year-pause-and-all...
19.
by midwest1 11y ago
I think it's difficult to assess the opinions of subsets of either major party. There are a large number of Republicans who believe in moderate regulation of industry, reducing the size of the defense industry, vaccinating our kids, a