RE: Why Climate change is a hoax

[liberosist]

If you have a great distrust of government organizations, I'd link you to this meta-analysis instead - http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Occam's razor - "Peddling too hard" because it's a bonafide existential threat to the human species. Climate scientists from around the world in various walks of life have overwhelming data have formed decisive consensus on this matter.

Like I said, this is not a matter of disagreement. You don't provide anything to disagree with. Your data in this post is solid, it's simply a matter of you misunderstanding two different phenomena.

Comments

[thatgermandude]

the problem about the article you linked: it shows data of the consensus. It does not explain how this consensus was reached.

My main reason for not trusting scientists and specifically the ones you linked when they are making prognoses:

1. They have been wrong in the past (Ask Einstein what he thought about the American science culture)
2. specifically the climate scientists make a living of climate being an important topic. There is a reason for them to be biased

The first sentences reads:

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100%

As an experienced reader of numbers I see two things in that statement:

1. 10% of climate scientists do not agree. A significant number.
2. Some method was used to say well maybe we can up to 100%.
3. How can I trust any of the other data when it is obvious shady techniques were used to let the reader wonder: Is it 10% disagreeing or a very very unrealistic 0%

[thatgermandude]

The article I just wrote on the topic.
https://steemit.com/politics/@thatgermandude/my-data-is-better-than-yours-1-climate-change-data-1-the-beginning

Im sorry for getting a little hostile. I would appreciate if you look into the method i chose to approach the problem in my new article.