Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I watched a bit of the video at the time but not much of it, I prefer to read than watch a video, it's so much more effective and time efficient. Plus on video like that you can't really see the graphs very well, or follow their references, or get much detail, etc..
Interesting that they would find the warming as statistically insignificant, because the current data has been sent blindly to several different statisticians (they didn't know it was climate data) and all agreed with the warming trend.
Ultimately science is done through refereed journals, has whoever made those videos published their findings would be my first question. I'll try and take a look further though.
EDIT: Also, with regards to the Daily Mail article that blog post Jetsfan posted, one of the scientists they based their premise on is upset because they misused his research: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ng-mojib-latif |
This isn't just to one person but everyone on either side:
Maybe the cycles are just bigger. If you told the statisticians that the actual dataset is a million times larger than the data that was submitted, they would unquestionably come back with a different answer.
Dinosaurs didn't freeze because of their exploitation of fossil fuels, the weather is extremely complex with probably thousands of mutually independant cycles, some short, some long, some small and some large.
Overall I don't understand why anyone, on either side argues with much passion, almost nobody understand weather completely. It could have been that we were in a 50 year warming trend, and now we are in a 50 year cooling trend. Nobody knows for sure, so how could anyone feel comfortable in arguing that the planet will heat up, or not?
The better discussion (by far) is if human activity is playing much of a role, again, nobody knows for sure however even if we think the chances are slight, that's reason in itself to change behavior.