Movealongmovealong
Sharpshooter
I hate to rain on the circlejerk parade here, but....
I seriously, seriously doubt that most of the people in here commenting on this VERY complex topic could even understand the most rudimentary mathematics that is required to interpret a lot of the data: calculus.
If you can't understand high school level calculus, I can assure you that you can't understand how to interpret most climate data from the perspective of understanding the projections forecast by climatologists regarding global warming. If you can't ace undergrad level statistics, I can easily make the same assertion.
I can provide PLENTY OF EXAMPLES if you wish to challenge my assertion.
And let me add that understanding the basic mathematics and statistics is only one small part of understanding the whole picture of, let's call it "Anthropogenic Global Warming"
Another major component is that the climate data MUST be collected from many, many different and disparate types of sensory equipment. That is because you can't just look at one location that gets hot vs. one location that gets cold. It's not like a complex organic chemistry problem that can be replicated on a bench. So, you can't just do a benchtop workup to emulate all of the characteristics of, again, and extremely complex phenomenon like "Anthropogenic Global Warming".
If your argument is "well I just don't trust the data points", then there is no conversation to be had with you. Do you doubt the images from the Hubble Space Telescope or the moon landing? Because no one on this thread will ever have the chance visit the Hubble telescope for themselves to verify its function, or the moon surface.
I could explain a FRESHMAN YEAR college level topic like basic organic chemistry, and the vast, vast majority of you could not understand it in its totality. Why? Because MOST people cannot understand it - it's a complex, difficult topic; hence, why it is a classic undergraduate weeder course for entry into advanced study in chemistry and biological sciences. Basic organic chemistry is like child's play in comparison to understanding a complex topic like global warming. Compare that to a difficult, again, UNDERGRADUATE level class like physical chemistry and you are just starting to understand how complex a topic like global warming is. In fact, I seriously doubt the majority of people in here even know what P. Chem even is.
The basics of the topic of global warming are easy to grasp. But really understanding the full scope of the problem is far, far from easy. An easy comparison is something like mastering chess or, better yet, the chinese game "Go".
I seriously, seriously doubt that most of the people in here commenting on this VERY complex topic could even understand the most rudimentary mathematics that is required to interpret a lot of the data: calculus.
If you can't understand high school level calculus, I can assure you that you can't understand how to interpret most climate data from the perspective of understanding the projections forecast by climatologists regarding global warming. If you can't ace undergrad level statistics, I can easily make the same assertion.
I can provide PLENTY OF EXAMPLES if you wish to challenge my assertion.
And let me add that understanding the basic mathematics and statistics is only one small part of understanding the whole picture of, let's call it "Anthropogenic Global Warming"
Another major component is that the climate data MUST be collected from many, many different and disparate types of sensory equipment. That is because you can't just look at one location that gets hot vs. one location that gets cold. It's not like a complex organic chemistry problem that can be replicated on a bench. So, you can't just do a benchtop workup to emulate all of the characteristics of, again, and extremely complex phenomenon like "Anthropogenic Global Warming".
If your argument is "well I just don't trust the data points", then there is no conversation to be had with you. Do you doubt the images from the Hubble Space Telescope or the moon landing? Because no one on this thread will ever have the chance visit the Hubble telescope for themselves to verify its function, or the moon surface.
I could explain a FRESHMAN YEAR college level topic like basic organic chemistry, and the vast, vast majority of you could not understand it in its totality. Why? Because MOST people cannot understand it - it's a complex, difficult topic; hence, why it is a classic undergraduate weeder course for entry into advanced study in chemistry and biological sciences. Basic organic chemistry is like child's play in comparison to understanding a complex topic like global warming. Compare that to a difficult, again, UNDERGRADUATE level class like physical chemistry and you are just starting to understand how complex a topic like global warming is. In fact, I seriously doubt the majority of people in here even know what P. Chem even is.
The basics of the topic of global warming are easy to grasp. But really understanding the full scope of the problem is far, far from easy. An easy comparison is something like mastering chess or, better yet, the chinese game "Go".
Last edited:
this is getting good.
