Obama 'took the wrong side' on climate change, says physicist Freeman Dyson

I see you failed to answer the question once again. How did the person come to the conclusion that there was no significant warming? Specifically what inference did he use?

What makes you think that 0.15 degrees per decade isn't statistically significant?

 

I can't help you if you don't understand uncertainty in data sets or statistics.

 

You didn't answer the question. How SPECIFICALLY did the person come to the conclusion that there was no significant warming? This should be easy for you since you think you know so much about statistics. What statistical formula or inference was used?

What is the specific uncertainty of all the data sets that makes you come to your conclusion?How specifically have you came to the conclusion that 0.15 degrees per decade isn't statistically significant?

How do you explain the same trend of ~0.15 degrees per decade coming from so many different sources from all over the planet? From satellites and instrumental sources alike? From both public and private sources?

 

For one, the published uncertainties are substantial: approximately 0.15 Cº either side of the central estimate which puts your estimate of 0.15 in the statistical range of 0.

 

So prove it. You seem so certain it should be easy to prove. What are the the uncertainties What statistical formula did you use to reach your conclusion that 0.15 is in the statistical range of 0?

Seriously anyone who claims that 0.15 is statistically zero has no concept of how statistics work. In statistics, 100%=1. So 0.15 is certainly not "statistically zero".

 

Oh my, can't help you if you don't understand what uncertainty is.

 

Lol. So you can't prove (*)(*)(*)(*) because you don't know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) you are talking about. And not a single person was surprised.

 

Hey, you celebrating your lack of understanding isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

Obama and around 150 other world leaders flew in polluting jets, from around the world, to talk about how humans are polluting and causing global warming...

 

Lol. So that what, disproves human caused climate change?

 

That's a ridiculous argument. Should have swum and ridden on bicycles?

How much carbon footprint did this create as opposed to the amount it would remove if successful?

That my friend is why your argument is silly at best

 

Hmmm, let's see, you are now communicating with people around the world without flying there.

 

How much carbon footprint did this create as opposed to the amount it would remove if successful?

 

It's not going to remove any. China is building 2400 coal plants. Japan is building coal plants in third world countries. This meeting is about redistribution of wealth that cannot be backed up by law.

 

How, exactly, would this wealth be redistributed?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes how would you successfully have thousands of people communicate at the same time without all being in the same place?

 

LOL, poor nations want 1 trillion dollars from first word nations. Obama is allegedly promising 100 billion a year but he won't have the backing of Congress.

Gosh, guess the National Address by the President is only heard by one person, or maybe you think you hold a conversation with thousands of people at the same time.

 

Link?

Lol. Seriously? The National Address is a one way speech......You can't have a several thousand person skype call.

 

I don't have time to bring you up to speed on current events!

 

Lol. You've never backed up a claim in your life have you?

 

Your lack of knowledge, inability to understand science, incapability to keep up with current events is not my problem.

 

And it seems that the idea that the Paris talks won't result in a reduction in emissions just isn't founded in reality.

One of the biggest successes of the summit is that before it even started more than 150 countries submitted proposals on how they will help combat climate change.

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/30/457364450/10-things-to-know-about-the-u-n-climate-talks-in-paris

 

Lol. No amount of ad hominems will make up for your inability to provide anything resembling evidence for any of your claims.

 

Pledges don't reduce anything.

As U.S. Shutters Coal Plants, China and Japan are Building Them

India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has indicated that he will not submit to Western pressure on cutting CO2 emissions.

Developing world needs $1t for climate change

The Latest: US House Leader Won't Pay for Climate Deal

 

The experts disagree. As my link clealy states.

Well lets start with the fact that your link is from an organization bankrolled by the energy industry and is a propagator of climate misinformation.

Next, the reason China keeps building coal plants is the same reason they keep building apartments no one lives in. Their economy is based on investment and building. And even as your link points out, China is replacing their old coal plants with newer more efficient ones. China is also investing in technologies such as hydroelectricity. They have already made great progress in reducing their emissions, as they have pledged to do.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ire-greenhouse-gases-emitted-by-10255957.html
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...ms-2030-emissions-target-20150630-gi1zk7.html


Japan in in a similar situation. Since Fukishima, the amount of energy coming from coal as shot up to 1/3. They are working on replacing their old coal plants with more efficient ones that emit less to get that number back down. This is a short term solution as Japan invests in better technology.

Your link appears to be out of date

http://time.com/4059051/india-indc-climate-change-carbon-emissions/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/w...o-lower-rate-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

McCarthy is not the only person in this country let alone on the planet.

 

Yea, I know the tendency to dismiss things that mainstream science and media do not discuss. But this makes sense. Why would the Inuit make this up?

http://www.thebigwobble.org/2014/12/their-sky-has-changed-inuit-elders.html

It seems the Inuit elders are also witnessing strange and unfathomable weather up there in the North.
The elders talk about how their world has changed, how it was then and how it is now.
It is a worrying picture, a picture of melting glaciers and thinning or disappearing sea ice.
Seals with burns on their coats and covered with sores and a thinner hide, the Seal skin has deteriorated and while scientists maintain man made pollution is contributing to climate change the elders are convinced something much much bigger is going on!
Astonishingly what the elders are saying is global warming is not the whole story...

The elders maintain the Sun doesn't rise were it used too, they have longer day light to hunt and the Sun is higher than it used to be and warms up quicker than before.
The elders who were interviewed across the north all said the same thing, their sky has changed.
The stars the Sun and the Moon have all changed affecting the temperature, even affecting the way the wind blows, it is becoming increasingly hard to predict the weather, something that is a must on the Arctic.

Warmer in the north, colder in the south.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/why-is-sea-ice-increasing-in-t/17970748