06-18-2012, 02:27 PM
Just a quick note here:
1) Regardless of people's stance on Climate Change / Global Warming / etc, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Conservation and watching out for the environment is something we should do, regardless of who's right. I've yet to meet anyone who thinks that Global Warming is fake AND that we should just trash the environment.
2) John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel, is an adamant denier of Climate Change. Granted, he's a meteorologist, not a climatologist, but he's one-more high profile scientist who thinks it's a bunch of hooey.
3) Perhaps someone here can explain this to me, as this is the part that I don't get:
Experiments and Statistics. I understand sample sizes and data verification. I understand variables and controls. What I don't understand is how Climatologists get data from older times. The Earth is X Bajillion years old. We have hard data from the last century or two.
A) We can't be sure of the accuracy of any data older than when we started paying attention to this, so like the 1970s. There is no way to show that the old hard-data is correct, per today's standards.
B) Ice cores / Tree Rings / etc. There doesn't seem to be much of a control (as in control group ) for their tests. They have a hypothesis of this is how it works, but I don't know if they have the means to prove that it's accurate.
TL;DR: People ( aka Media, Scientists, Gov't ) need to keep regarding Climate Change as a theory, not a hard fact. That being said, we need to look out for the Environment anyway.
1) Regardless of people's stance on Climate Change / Global Warming / etc, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Conservation and watching out for the environment is something we should do, regardless of who's right. I've yet to meet anyone who thinks that Global Warming is fake AND that we should just trash the environment.
2) John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel, is an adamant denier of Climate Change. Granted, he's a meteorologist, not a climatologist, but he's one-more high profile scientist who thinks it's a bunch of hooey.
3) Perhaps someone here can explain this to me, as this is the part that I don't get:
Experiments and Statistics. I understand sample sizes and data verification. I understand variables and controls. What I don't understand is how Climatologists get data from older times. The Earth is X Bajillion years old. We have hard data from the last century or two.
A) We can't be sure of the accuracy of any data older than when we started paying attention to this, so like the 1970s. There is no way to show that the old hard-data is correct, per today's standards.
B) Ice cores / Tree Rings / etc. There doesn't seem to be much of a control (as in control group ) for their tests. They have a hypothesis of this is how it works, but I don't know if they have the means to prove that it's accurate.
TL;DR: People ( aka Media, Scientists, Gov't ) need to keep regarding Climate Change as a theory, not a hard fact. That being said, we need to look out for the Environment anyway.