Yes, there has been strategy afoot to propagandize populations and minimize legitimate information (journalism and science) in order to corruptly seize power; any country without a free press becomes ripe for the picking. Recently, Trump pointed out that, I'm paraphrasing, he needed to put on a show to remain...
Best answer: Yes, there has been strategy afoot to propagandize populations and minimize legitimate information (journalism and science) in order to corruptly seize power; any country without a free press becomes ripe for the picking. Recently, Trump pointed out that, I'm paraphrasing, he needed to put on a show to remain in power. In his frame of reference there may be something more dangerous than standing in the middle of 5th Avenue, shooting somebody, and not losing voters, and that is, telling those voters more truth. If you're in America, couches and asses are dangerous. Get up and vote!
The updates will come later if I have time.
For the following, I'm just eyeballing the graph Dirac provided for Kano if I'm not mistaken.
The given tide gauge data graph shows acceleration; the curve, even with the margin of error, looks somewhat quadratic. Normally, I download and analyze data finding curve of best fit, correlation, and so on.
Note: The answer box couldn't handle the math without ghosting.
See comments for math.
This is almost to silly to comment on, but It is important to combat lying and propaganda with truth, and that's what you appear to be attempting Dirac. If that was JimZ's contribution, it's wrong. It's easy to put out junk without proof. It's easy to gum up the works with I don't knowism, but these things, end up in the dust bin of history.
While reading a geometry book years ago, I read a passage dealing with prejudice by authority. The author was suggesting that one should not cite authority alone as a basis of knowledge. True enough, but this really only left me one option, doing the hard work of research before accepting authority; It seems like I have been doing this my entire time on this planet. I am a scientist. My background in chronological order is: applied physics, electrical engineering, computer science, and theoretical physics. I'm not a climate scientist, but regardless, I have enough prerequisite knowledge to understand Earth's state of energy.
While researching the "97%" question I realized that, for me, the question is irrelevant. I did enough research, again for me alone, to know AGW is a fact, and now I'm allowed to accept the claims of certain authorities without prejudice. There's no easy way for me. It's always hard but rewarding work. If GC is claiming uncertainty, that's fine. If GC wants to tell us what he/she is most certain of that's better. Hard core yeas and nays from abstracts and climate scientists would have been best in the first place, but you can't always get what you want.
Maybe, the prolific Q&A power plant engineer doesn't have time to do the
hard work of science or (math)?