I, on the other hand, can derive it at least in at the single layer model level such as the one laid out in Petty (a book that is sitting a few inches from my left elbow as I type this).
Great! So you should know how to verify whether your model has any sort of predictive qualities. Why in God's name are you then using arbitrary high points and windows to determine whether the various GCMs are accurate??
if the ocean was rising an inch a year
Which GCM predicted this? I have not seen a single GCM that predicted more than a meter over a 100 year range. Citation please.
, if the climate/temperature were completely flat before CO_2 started to increase
Wait - why would the global climate/temperature curve have been completely flat in any time frame? I'll even give you 1% fluctuations, since I'm sure you understand that temperatures cannot ever be completely flat, but that's a ludicrous starting point.
increased monotonically and consistently lagging CO_2 concentration
You do understand that global temperatures are influenced by more things than just CO2 concentration, right? If so, why would this ever be the case?
I'd very likely have a different stance than I do
So the starting conditions for you to change your mind on the current trajectory of GCC are completely impossible, physically ridiculous, and have never been advocated in the climate literature or by any of the major models?
I actually think it is rather probable that the bulk of the GCMs contain a substantial warming bias and represent the wrong balance between CO_2 linked forcing, feedbacks, and natural variation.
Care to elaborate? At this point, I see someone who knows a lot of details, but puts out ridiculous statements that seem to serve strictly to solidify a preconceived idea about GCC. As a result, I need more than just your opinion on the possible warming bias.
In even the crudest predictive statistical theory, fitting a training set with a mix of terms with opposing signs and strong covariance leads to entire volumes of parameter space that will all give decent fits to the training set data but fail to extrapolate correctly outside of the training set. I actually have a modest expertise on this and have studied it fairly deeply, and this looks like exactly what is happening with the GCMs. It is enormously difficult to avoid, actually, in highly multivariate modelling in general -- I could wax poetic about rough landscapes and optimization and the dependence of a particular fit on how the model was initialized and then optimized and a generalized degeneracy in the parameter space that fits particular data chords in incomplete models.
Agreed. But since you seem to know all this, then why in God's name are you talking about outliers, single monthly datapoints and windows with arbitrarily selected time frames that are designed to prove your initial statement - that the GCMs are junk?
I'll skip quoting the rest of your post, as it is similarly full of impossible requirements or cherry-picked single data points. I'm stymied as to why someone who spends so much time with statistical analysis, physical system models and energy calculations feeds me wrong assumptions, wrong end-points, impossible starting conditions and a lot of hand-waving about things that are likely, possible and otherwise somehow and vaguely not accurate.
I'm reminded about the joke of the physicist asked to describe the motion of a cow on a frozen lake, spiced with a desire to find data supporting a personal physical model.
At what point will (or if you prefer, "can") the actual data convince you that the predictions of the GCMs might be wrong?
I think your correction to your own question illustrates more clearly than anything else that you've already made up your mind, and are not considering further debate.
So on the one hand, you're using an unusually hot event to skew the statistical calculation for the last 15 years, and on the other hand want to pick further arbitrary intervals to identify random trends? For your next trick, maybe you can show us that PI is encoding the last 42 presidential elections. I mean, if we are on the topic of applying arbitrary intervals to data sets in order to find trends that match your theory....
That's what, 0.5 C of total warming over 75 years, almost all occurring in one single burst
I'm sure you can calculate exactly how much energy is encapsulated in that temperature increase, right? Especially considering that oceans are little more than giant heat and carbon sinks?
except that warming occurred without the benefit of significant CO_2 forcing and was much more uniform.
Citation needed, considering that that is completely outside your area of expertise.
The problem is that ATT uses its position as both a Tier 1 provider and as a consumer ISP to play both sides of the argument: on the one hand, they're arguing that Netflix sends too much traffic their way to get peering agreements hashed out, and on the other hand, they artificially constrain their upstream data by restricting how much and what customers can upload.
Because of this, there is no way for anyone to peer properly with ATT: they can always create traffic conditions that will suit whatever argument they want.
What everybody seems to forget is that Nate Silver did only two things: he assumed that polls were actually somewhere between properly done and improperly done, and weighted them according to his own assessment of the polls' gathering process. Then he crunched the numbers according to basic statistics. Also, people forget that until the day before voting actually took place, he had one state incorrect - I believe it was North Carolina. It was such a close toss-up though that whatever numbers they were crunching and putting up on the site very slowly moved it over into the correct column.
As a result, I'm highly skeptical both of his new venture, which goes far beyond a straightforward data set and proper statistical analysis, and everybody's sudden belief that anything can be predicted, if you just use the right data set. A couple of decades ago, one of the SI sportswriters (Zimmerman) fully predicted the NFL playoffs at the start of the season. He never managed it again, even if he did better than most others. Keep that in mind anytime someone tells you that they have figured out how to predict human nature with statistics.
You might be a little young to remember, but there was an Iraq War I. I can understand the confusion, since a Bush and Hussein were both at the helm of the first one.
You also forget rule #1 of international Army: it's only as valid as the guns supporting it.
Some citations are worse than no citations. Or do you think linking to timecube guy is somehow respectable when discussing the failings of the current physics models? Any of the major news agencies are better than a site affiliated with a particular party.
Also, you make a claim, you better back it up. Not up to us to do your research for you.
A representative democracy is a subset of all democracies, which are a subset of all republics. What the Federalist Papers talks about is the danger of a Direct Democracy. Seriously, read it sometimes. Don't take the word of others for what's in them.
So yes, we have a democracy. We also have a republic. Sometimes, I suspect that this right-wing talking point was created because some Republicans were tired of Democrats sounding like they're the only ones for a democracy, since their name is so close.
But even a Republic's financial solvency can be threatened by a majority of politicians out-promising each other over how many gifts they will give people in order to get elected.
Representatives handing out cash in return for elections is pretty much exactly what is happening now. No different than people directly voting for more money for them.
The fiscally conservative side of the voting block is very concerned that a numb
Sadly, I'm quite sure you're right. That said, I'm willing to give them a chance. I'm also willing to make a point out of Alice Hill's resume essentially lying about her relaunch capabilities.
To pile on the reasons why beta sucks: 1) The images are almost entirely, but not completely unrelated to the story. It's like someone has access to photostock and scripted an automatic photofinder that adds the first result from the query containing all the tags. 2) The discussions are automatically expanded, which wastes a lot of space. No, I don't want to see only "interesting", or only "intelligent". All that the ratings basically are is "I agree" or "I disagree", with a few lone exceptions for obvious trolling material. Give me the highlights, and let me easily expand and collapse threads. You know, like it does right now.
I have a strong feeling that a lot of the design was cribbed from Ars Technica, but you missed pretty much everything what makes their design work: 1) They have actual editors, including photo editors. That means that the images are frequently awesome creations that add commentary to the headline, and headlines and summaries are actually useful. At Slashdot, the summaries are frequently nothing more than the first paragraph of the article. 2) It's easy to quote people, directly link to comments, and be notified of and find new comments. Beta does neither.
So, for the TLDR crowd (yes, that means you, managers and executives): No one cares about the front page of Slashdot, because editors have on average sucked since the beginning. The only thing people care about is the article and the discussion. Make either hard to get to or hard to use, and everyone will leave. I'm sure you noticed that your SlashBI stuff is failing pretty miserably. The same thing will happen to Slashdot if you don't fix the useful information issue of beta.
I love this part of her resume: "Proven track record innovating and improving iconic websites (CNET.com, Dice.com, Slashdot.org, Sourceforge.net) while protecting their voice and brand integrity; extensive board level and governance experience especially with non-profit volunteer communities, open source developers, and local chapters and projects worldwide. "
ROFL. Fortunately for her, none of the people who would interview her are techies. Otherwise, that little blurb would get her laughed out of the room.
You might understand algebra, but your knowledge of even the most basic economic terms seem to be scarily absent.... You don't vote, do you? Please don't.
Republicans have discovered another way to shut down the government: just prevent it from collecting any data required to do its job.
Regulatory agency needs to collect data on credit cards to determine whether credit card providers are up to illegal shenanigans, or what kind of regulations are too little, just right, or overkill? Tell them that they're like the NSA, need to be shut down and the bureaucrats strung up high.
I'm wondering when they will apply this to healthcare and the IRS. What better way from preventing them from operating than to deny them access to any data? Bonuspoint: Republicans get to point out how ineffective the Federal Government is, and how it should all just be dismantled.
No promise is more self-fulfilling than that of a government official who insists that government is bad. It's the only position where doing a horrible job actually gets you a promotion. And I don't mean that in the cynical, "the-sheep-don't-know-who-they're-voting" way, I mean that quite literally: some Republicans go into office to demonstrate how bad government is, do all kinds of things that destroys the ability of the government to do anything (hello government shutdown...), and then go back to their constituents and say "See how bad government is? I was right! Vote for me!"
You do realize that none of what you wrote contradicts what Chua and Rubenfeld said, right? In fact, they have nothing to do with what they said. You are pointing out specific communities that are successful and what they do. They are pointing out traits that seem to be common in all those groups, and which drive why these communities do what they do.
For what it's worth, I agree with them. Without the belief that you can succeed, you will not. Without the belief that you have to succeed (because otherwise bad things happen to you), there's a high chance you'll fall into the category of unrealized potential. And finally, impulse control has now repeatedly been shown to be one of, if not the primary indicator of adult success.
That triple package has nothing to do with government corruption. It's just a package of character traits that correlate very strongly with success, for known psychological reasons.
But what is the solution here? Move it to the private sector? You said yourself that the private sector has no experience with that kind of stuff. It's easy to scream.gov sucks, but the private sector will face far bigger problems - including dealing with corporate failure. Will everyone go without insurance just because a corporation failed?
So when a government agency does something good, it's because it outsourced some work to the private sector. If it does something bad, it is because it is a government agency. Did I get that right? For some reason , I smell a variation of the "privatize profits, socialize losses" mantra.
You've been around long enough that you should know that Slashdot never was in any of its incarnations "just about tech news." It was always news for nerds, which covered Astronomy and Biology and Legos and Batman, and it was stuff that matters - which is everything that mattered to Commander Taco and the rest of the gang.
" I don't have time to waste on people who set one standard for others and a different one for them, while not even bothering with reading comprehension." != "I don't have patience to have the discussion." != "I don't have patience for the environment"
Yeah... if you're the last shining hope for the environment.... we're all fucked.
If you care... you'll reengage with humility, mutual respect, and patience. The only reason to not do that is because you refuse to control your ego, refuse to treat people you need the cooperation of with respect, and lack the intellectual patience to go through a matter in the time required.
Let me get this straight: you link to an article that barely quotes two words by someone, make up a claim about Al Gore having been made into a front man, and then argue about engaging with humility, respect and patience? Personally, I don't have time to waste on people who set one standard for others and a different one for them, while not even bothering with reading comprehension.
I care. I have my own biases but I am willing to humbly go through the matter acknowledging what I don't know or understand, showing common courtesy to people that I might not agree with or trust, and patiently going through the matter step by step.
If that's the case, why in God's name are you using the Daily Caller as an authority on anything that's going on? I mean, they barely managed to quote two consecutive words of Figueres, and then just half of the article on a rant about the evils of Communism. Yes, an authoritative government is always able to get more done than a democratic one. That's almost by definition. The question always is, which one is more effective long-term and has more positive long-term impacts?
Not surprising. After, the grandparent made the claim that Al Gore was made into the Climate Change front man, when nothing of that sort has happened. Instead, he used his considerable fortune to make a movie, put out a book and go on a speaking tour about Climate Change. And for what it's worth: he still hasn't been wrong about his core facts. The worst people can point to is some hyperbolic language here and there.
Okay, admittedly #4 is more an expression of frustration. I'm not a geologist or meteorologist, so pointing me at the raw data doesn't tell me anything, but having it "translated" for my by "experts" has proven all but useless, since this "debate" still doesn't seem to have much to do with science as opposed to politicization of funding.
Someone already pointed out that your first three points are merely an expression of your own ignorance of the research that's already been done. I'll just point out the flaw in your own logic in that sentence: you freely admit that you are incapable of understanding the raw data. At the same time, you disagree with the conclusions of pretty much all the experts out there who do have the training to understand the data, because you're resorting to a thinly veiled of ad-hominem of "they're all bought anyway".
You can't have it both ways: either do the data analysis yourself and hash out your results in public with all the other climate scientists, or go with the consensus of the climate scientists. But to claim that you don't understand the data and the field, and that no one else really makes any sense is just claiming your ignorance as being as good as anybody else's knowledge. Excuse me if I don't consider that line of reasoning very convincing.
Slashdot Mirror
I, on the other hand, can derive it at least in at the single layer model level such as the one laid out in Petty (a book that is sitting a few inches from my left elbow as I type this).
Great! So you should know how to verify whether your model has any sort of predictive qualities. Why in God's name are you then using arbitrary high points and windows to determine whether the various GCMs are accurate??
if the ocean was rising an inch a year
Which GCM predicted this? I have not seen a single GCM that predicted more than a meter over a 100 year range. Citation please.
, if the climate/temperature were completely flat before CO_2 started to increase
Wait - why would the global climate/temperature curve have been completely flat in any time frame? I'll even give you 1% fluctuations, since I'm sure you understand that temperatures cannot ever be completely flat, but that's a ludicrous starting point.
increased monotonically and consistently lagging CO_2 concentration
You do understand that global temperatures are influenced by more things than just CO2 concentration, right? If so, why would this ever be the case?
I'd very likely have a different stance than I do
So the starting conditions for you to change your mind on the current trajectory of GCC are completely impossible, physically ridiculous, and have never been advocated in the climate literature or by any of the major models?
I actually think it is rather probable that the bulk of the GCMs contain a substantial warming bias and represent the wrong balance between CO_2 linked forcing, feedbacks, and natural variation.
Care to elaborate? At this point, I see someone who knows a lot of details, but puts out ridiculous statements that seem to serve strictly to solidify a preconceived idea about GCC. As a result, I need more than just your opinion on the possible warming bias.
In even the crudest predictive statistical theory, fitting a training set with a mix of terms with opposing signs and strong covariance leads to entire volumes of parameter space that will all give decent fits to the training set data but fail to extrapolate correctly outside of the training set. I actually have a modest expertise on this and have studied it fairly deeply, and this looks like exactly what is happening with the GCMs. It is enormously difficult to avoid, actually, in highly multivariate modelling in general -- I could wax poetic about rough landscapes and optimization and the dependence of a particular fit on how the model was initialized and then optimized and a generalized degeneracy in the parameter space that fits particular data chords in incomplete models.
Agreed. But since you seem to know all this, then why in God's name are you talking about outliers, single monthly datapoints and windows with arbitrarily selected time frames that are designed to prove your initial statement - that the GCMs are junk?
I'll skip quoting the rest of your post, as it is similarly full of impossible requirements or cherry-picked single data points. I'm stymied as to why someone who spends so much time with statistical analysis, physical system models and energy calculations feeds me wrong assumptions, wrong end-points, impossible starting conditions and a lot of hand-waving about things that are likely, possible and otherwise somehow and vaguely not accurate.
I'm reminded about the joke of the physicist asked to describe the motion of a cow on a frozen lake, spiced with a desire to find data supporting a personal physical model.
At what point will (or if you prefer, "can") the actual data convince you that the predictions of the GCMs might be wrong?
I think your correction to your own question illustrates more clearly than anything else that you've already made up your mind, and are not considering further debate.
So on the one hand, you're using an unusually hot event to skew the statistical calculation for the last 15 years, and on the other hand want to pick further arbitrary intervals to identify random trends? For your next trick, maybe you can show us that PI is encoding the last 42 presidential elections. I mean, if we are on the topic of applying arbitrary intervals to data sets in order to find trends that match your theory....
That's what, 0.5 C of total warming over 75 years, almost all occurring in one single burst
I'm sure you can calculate exactly how much energy is encapsulated in that temperature increase, right? Especially considering that oceans are little more than giant heat and carbon sinks?
except that warming occurred without the benefit of significant CO_2 forcing and was much more uniform.
Citation needed, considering that that is completely outside your area of expertise.
Continue reading. The good stuff comes after the first half of fluff. It actually has some interesting content in it.
Ah yes, Obama, our weak totalitarian king community organizer who is controlled by nazi tree-hugging muslim pastors.
Did I get everything that's wrong with Obama? Or am I missing the fear du jour?
The problem is that ATT uses its position as both a Tier 1 provider and as a consumer ISP to play both sides of the argument: on the one hand, they're arguing that Netflix sends too much traffic their way to get peering agreements hashed out, and on the other hand, they artificially constrain their upstream data by restricting how much and what customers can upload.
Because of this, there is no way for anyone to peer properly with ATT: they can always create traffic conditions that will suit whatever argument they want.
What everybody seems to forget is that Nate Silver did only two things: he assumed that polls were actually somewhere between properly done and improperly done, and weighted them according to his own assessment of the polls' gathering process. Then he crunched the numbers according to basic statistics. Also, people forget that until the day before voting actually took place, he had one state incorrect - I believe it was North Carolina. It was such a close toss-up though that whatever numbers they were crunching and putting up on the site very slowly moved it over into the correct column.
As a result, I'm highly skeptical both of his new venture, which goes far beyond a straightforward data set and proper statistical analysis, and everybody's sudden belief that anything can be predicted, if you just use the right data set. A couple of decades ago, one of the SI sportswriters (Zimmerman) fully predicted the NFL playoffs at the start of the season. He never managed it again, even if he did better than most others. Keep that in mind anytime someone tells you that they have figured out how to predict human nature with statistics.
You might be a little young to remember, but there was an Iraq War I. I can understand the confusion, since a Bush and Hussein were both at the helm of the first one.
You also forget rule #1 of international Army: it's only as valid as the guns supporting it.
Some citations are worse than no citations. Or do you think linking to timecube guy is somehow respectable when discussing the failings of the current physics models? Any of the major news agencies are better than a site affiliated with a particular party.
Also, you make a claim, you better back it up. Not up to us to do your research for you.
A representative democracy is a subset of all democracies, which are a subset of all republics. What the Federalist Papers talks about is the danger of a Direct Democracy. Seriously, read it sometimes. Don't take the word of others for what's in them.
So yes, we have a democracy. We also have a republic. Sometimes, I suspect that this right-wing talking point was created because some Republicans were tired of Democrats sounding like they're the only ones for a democracy, since their name is so close.
But even a Republic's financial solvency can be threatened by a majority of politicians out-promising each other over how many gifts they will give people in order to get elected.
Representatives handing out cash in return for elections is pretty much exactly what is happening now. No different than people directly voting for more money for them.
The fiscally conservative side of the voting block is very concerned that a numb
Sadly, I'm quite sure you're right. That said, I'm willing to give them a chance. I'm also willing to make a point out of Alice Hill's resume essentially lying about her relaunch capabilities.
We'll see where this goes.
To pile on the reasons why beta sucks:
1) The images are almost entirely, but not completely unrelated to the story. It's like someone has access to photostock and scripted an automatic photofinder that adds the first result from the query containing all the tags.
2) The discussions are automatically expanded, which wastes a lot of space. No, I don't want to see only "interesting", or only "intelligent". All that the ratings basically are is "I agree" or "I disagree", with a few lone exceptions for obvious trolling material. Give me the highlights, and let me easily expand and collapse threads. You know, like it does right now.
I have a strong feeling that a lot of the design was cribbed from Ars Technica, but you missed pretty much everything what makes their design work:
1) They have actual editors, including photo editors. That means that the images are frequently awesome creations that add commentary to the headline, and headlines and summaries are actually useful. At Slashdot, the summaries are frequently nothing more than the first paragraph of the article.
2) It's easy to quote people, directly link to comments, and be notified of and find new comments. Beta does neither.
So, for the TLDR crowd (yes, that means you, managers and executives):
No one cares about the front page of Slashdot, because editors have on average sucked since the beginning.
The only thing people care about is the article and the discussion. Make either hard to get to or hard to use, and everyone will leave. I'm sure you noticed that your SlashBI stuff is failing pretty miserably. The same thing will happen to Slashdot if you don't fix the useful information issue of beta.
I love this part of her resume:
"Proven track record innovating and improving iconic websites (CNET.com, Dice.com, Slashdot.org, Sourceforge.net) while protecting their voice and brand integrity; extensive board level and governance experience especially with non-profit volunteer communities, open source developers, and local chapters and projects worldwide. "
ROFL. Fortunately for her, none of the people who would interview her are techies. Otherwise, that little blurb would get her laughed out of the room.
I don't think you understand what inflation actually means. Here, let me help you with inflation for dummies:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation
You might understand algebra, but your knowledge of even the most basic economic terms seem to be scarily absent.... You don't vote, do you? Please don't.
Republicans have discovered another way to shut down the government: just prevent it from collecting any data required to do its job.
Regulatory agency needs to collect data on credit cards to determine whether credit card providers are up to illegal shenanigans, or what kind of regulations are too little, just right, or overkill? Tell them that they're like the NSA, need to be shut down and the bureaucrats strung up high.
I'm wondering when they will apply this to healthcare and the IRS. What better way from preventing them from operating than to deny them access to any data? Bonuspoint: Republicans get to point out how ineffective the Federal Government is, and how it should all just be dismantled.
No promise is more self-fulfilling than that of a government official who insists that government is bad. It's the only position where doing a horrible job actually gets you a promotion. And I don't mean that in the cynical, "the-sheep-don't-know-who-they're-voting" way, I mean that quite literally: some Republicans go into office to demonstrate how bad government is, do all kinds of things that destroys the ability of the government to do anything (hello government shutdown...), and then go back to their constituents and say "See how bad government is? I was right! Vote for me!"
You do realize that none of what you wrote contradicts what Chua and Rubenfeld said, right? In fact, they have nothing to do with what they said. You are pointing out specific communities that are successful and what they do. They are pointing out traits that seem to be common in all those groups, and which drive why these communities do what they do.
For what it's worth, I agree with them. Without the belief that you can succeed, you will not. Without the belief that you have to succeed (because otherwise bad things happen to you), there's a high chance you'll fall into the category of unrealized potential. And finally, impulse control has now repeatedly been shown to be one of, if not the primary indicator of adult success.
That triple package has nothing to do with government corruption. It's just a package of character traits that correlate very strongly with success, for known psychological reasons.
But what is the solution here? Move it to the private sector? You said yourself that the private sector has no experience with that kind of stuff. It's easy to scream .gov sucks, but the private sector will face far bigger problems - including dealing with corporate failure. Will everyone go without insurance just because a corporation failed?
So when a government agency does something good, it's because it outsourced some work to the private sector. If it does something bad, it is because it is a government agency. Did I get that right? For some reason , I smell a variation of the "privatize profits, socialize losses" mantra.
You've been around long enough that you should know that Slashdot never was in any of its incarnations "just about tech news." It was always news for nerds, which covered Astronomy and Biology and Legos and Batman, and it was stuff that matters - which is everything that mattered to Commander Taco and the rest of the gang.
" I don't have time to waste on people who set one standard for others and a different one for them, while not even bothering with reading comprehension." != "I don't have patience to have the discussion." != "I don't have patience for the environment"
Yeah... if you're the last shining hope for the environment.... we're all fucked.
Total non sequitur. Or are you conceding my point and looking for the next fight?
The core of the political movement around climate change, and therefore its organization was Al Gore.
Citation needed.
Pretending otherwise is a game for children and idiots. I am neither. Step it up.
Kek.
If you care... you'll reengage with humility, mutual respect, and patience. The only reason to not do that is because you refuse to control your ego, refuse to treat people you need the cooperation of with respect, and lack the intellectual patience to go through a matter in the time required.
Let me get this straight: you link to an article that barely quotes two words by someone, make up a claim about Al Gore having been made into a front man, and then argue about engaging with humility, respect and patience? Personally, I don't have time to waste on people who set one standard for others and a different one for them, while not even bothering with reading comprehension.
I care. I have my own biases but I am willing to humbly go through the matter acknowledging what I don't know or understand, showing common courtesy to people that I might not agree with or trust, and patiently going through the matter step by step.
If that's the case, why in God's name are you using the Daily Caller as an authority on anything that's going on? I mean, they barely managed to quote two consecutive words of Figueres, and then just half of the article on a rant about the evils of Communism. Yes, an authoritative government is always able to get more done than a democratic one. That's almost by definition. The question always is, which one is more effective long-term and has more positive long-term impacts?
Not surprising. After, the grandparent made the claim that Al Gore was made into the Climate Change front man, when nothing of that sort has happened. Instead, he used his considerable fortune to make a movie, put out a book and go on a speaking tour about Climate Change. And for what it's worth: he still hasn't been wrong about his core facts. The worst people can point to is some hyperbolic language here and there.
Okay, admittedly #4 is more an expression of frustration. I'm not a geologist or meteorologist, so pointing me at the raw data doesn't tell me anything, but having it "translated" for my by "experts" has proven all but useless, since this "debate" still doesn't seem to have much to do with science as opposed to politicization of funding.
Someone already pointed out that your first three points are merely an expression of your own ignorance of the research that's already been done. I'll just point out the flaw in your own logic in that sentence: you freely admit that you are incapable of understanding the raw data. At the same time, you disagree with the conclusions of pretty much all the experts out there who do have the training to understand the data, because you're resorting to a thinly veiled of ad-hominem of "they're all bought anyway".
You can't have it both ways: either do the data analysis yourself and hash out your results in public with all the other climate scientists, or go with the consensus of the climate scientists. But to claim that you don't understand the data and the field, and that no one else really makes any sense is just claiming your ignorance as being as good as anybody else's knowledge. Excuse me if I don't consider that line of reasoning very convincing.