Take a look at these quotes from articles from the past 120 years. What can we make from them? Is climate change actually a big of a deal as it’s claimed? The fact that “climate change” is such political issue gives me doubt. Any political talking point should always be scrutinized and criticized. Politicians have an agenda and will use anything they can to push that agenda.
I’m not here to argue about climate change being real or not. Rather, I would like opinions about the website I shared
Different stats aren’t facts then. It was* never a “fact” that swimming after eating* gave you cramps. It was always a factoid. Measuring climate data from reputable sets all point in the same direction. Also, if all the overwhelmingly majority of climate scientists from around the world all say the same thing. What does that have to do with politicians? Lastly your “fact” is a personal opinion, not a “fact”.
Ok. Let me try again. In practice, as a data analyst would know, interpreting data is a messy, subjective business. If you asked two data scientists to look into the same question, you’re liable to get two completely different answers, even if they’re both working with the same dataset. That’s to say, one dataset can produce multiple “facts.” Both conclusions can be “facts,” but it is subjective.
Things aren’t as black and white as you imagine. So many things involving sciences were facts, until they werent. Consider the big role biases play when coming to different conclusions. Consider that MANY conclusions are based on a limited data set.
Yes, and when all the data sets point towards human made climate change, then you have a fact. When it’s peer reviewed and studied, and when, it’s challenged, and the data all still points to the same story, there is your fact. If two analysts come up with different data, then they cannot by definition be a “fact”. Having one or two people go against the consensus, is fine, however when they make a challenge and their findings are proven incorrect, and they are still incapable of proving otherwise, then they need to review their biases. If they don’t, well then, they aren’t looking at things scientifically.
I’ve failed to get through to you… do some googling, please.
I did some for you. Read an article.
https://www.horizons-mag.ch/2021/12/02/same-data-different-conclusions
Or
https://news.fiu.edu/2020/researchers-choices-could-draw-different-conclusions
Or go ask AI to explain it to you.
You missed the point that drawing different conclusions out of data doesn’t equate a fact.
Things are different in the scientific world. There are more stringent criteria required before claims can be taken as truths.
I like you, though, anyway. Let’s be friends. Haha
No bother, I’m exasperating.
I’m seriously done… you’re exasperating.
You seem to lack a general understanding of how politics work in regards to how they use topics such as “climate change” to advance their agenda, and im not going to try to explain all that to you.
Oh, I understood politics, thank you. But what politicians say or do, has no effect on the reality of climate change.
This tells me exactly you don’t understand the political natures of the climate change issue…
This tells me exactly that you don’t understand that climate change is happening regardless of what politicians are saying.
Sure, but what politicians do does affects the perceived reality of climate change.