Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

Opinion does NOT equal fact.

Indeed. And the past fifteen years that include no significant warming would suggest that the opinions that we'd have warmer temperatures and sea levels of at least 10cm higher were just opinions wholly unsupported by facts.

In any case I agree with Boots too. The opinion of the 20% minority who think the debate about global warming is over does not equal fact.

And 80% of Americans also believe in Angels.....coincedence?

And when somebody suggests an Angel tax that might bother me. Until that time no taxation without representation.

That same 80% likely thinks that Canadians are all really nice people despite your best efforts to enlighten them otherwise.

Indeed. And the past fifteen years that include no significant warming would suggest that the opinions that we'd have warmer temperatures and sea levels of at least 10cm higher were just opinions wholly unsupported by facts.

Oh, so now it's "significant" that matters?

Actually it's no "statistically significant" warming.

There seems to be different ways to say what that means to make it sound bad or good depending on what you believe, but the way I understand it, it means there's not enough warming, if any, to know for sure if there is no warming or maybe some small amount of warming.

Look it up. It's a tricky concept. But it's a math thing, and it's generally agreed upon as existing, even by your guys.

You should heed your own advice.

It means that there is warming, but the rate of warming is less than or equal to the rate of error in data. All statistics come with an error rate, because the results are aggregated. Therefore it may or may not be 'significant'.

But it definitely isn't cooling.

You should heed your own advice.

I knew what it was. You didn't. Which one of us needs to look it up?

Oh and congratulations on your lengthy posts lately. In my mind I used to call you "Three word Sandra". Now if we could just get you to somehow post some actual information. I guess first we'll have to show you how to find some. In other words, "look it up".

And as I said, "There seems to be different ways to say what that means to make it sound bad or good depending on what you believe".

We're both saying the same thing, only different. Basically what I'm saying is if any perceived warming falls in under the error bars we don't know for sure if any real warming is actually there. You would suggest there probably is. Both are possible.

And yes there's no cooling, but the models used to say CO2 would go up, then global temperature would go up in relation to it. That's not happening right now. C02 appears to be rising rather rapidly. Global temperature is in what they're calling "the climate pause".

And as I said, "There seems to be different ways to say what that means to make it sound bad or good depending on what you believe".

And as I always say, the numbers are the numbers. There is no 'belief'. There is no 'spin' in math or statistics. They are what they are. The trend is upward, and it is equal with the error rate of the data.



See comments about math. I don't 'say' anything. I read what is written in the graph. Only one interpretation is possible that way, unless you want to cherry pick error rates so that the maximum error occurred in the distant past and the minimum error in the recent past. That flattens the curve, but it statistically unlikely. Error rates remain constant, they don't typically change over time.



And that's the scary part. Models are only as good as our theories, and our models don't account for where the heat is going. Warming is still increasing, but we don't see it's effects. When we do see it, the likelihood is that it will be an extreme change.

And as I always say rhetoric is rhetoric. So once you or I explain what we think the numbers say, we can both be right and still be giving different impressions.

For example...

Suppose a generally biased blog gives it's interpretation of what is in a scientific study. Do you expect the same sort of objectivity you would hopefully see in the original source?