It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How to lie statistically?

page: 11
32
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: melatonin
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not sure it's the data that the problem when interpreted.

Poor equipment can suddenly become 'lying liars who lie and want to take my money and freedoms'.

Well-established physical data gets wrapped up in obfuscation and noise for some unknown reason.

Depends on who does the interpreting, I guess.


Depends on who selects and extrapolates the data. As in the recent case of Australia, depends on the limits of the temperature ranges that are allowed to be recorded.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz
The reason deniers get shunned and mocked is because if the sheer vast overwhelming quantity of good peer confirmed science that they choose to discount because they have a feeling that it must be a huge conspiracy run by Al gore or somesuch.


www.nationalreview.com...

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.


41 peer reviewed papers out of 11,924...

notrickszone.com...


Interestingly, since January 2014, the last 2 and half years, 770 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published in scholarly journals that call into question just how settled the “consensus” science is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing dominates weather and climate changes, or that non-anthropogenic factors play only a relatively minor and inconsequential role.


Looks like not all scientists are "overwhelmed" by the scam! The consensus claims are little more than bullying through an artificial claim of peer pressure. There is a consensus that the climate is changing... what's missing is any consensus (outside of NGOs making their riches off of the fears and government's paying their funding grants) as to mankind's role in that change. Hell, there's not even any consensus on whether we're going to get hotter or delve into a mini ice age... (which is why we're now talking "climate change" instead of the "global warming" they all talked about 20 years ago... people tend to be a bit more astute if "experts" tell them they'll see record highs and droughts if they don't start ponying up more of their earnings happily to the cause only to see record lows and big snowfall/rainfall occur, thus: it's now "climate change" a monumental covering of the ass to ensure any unusually cold or hot spell or large storm can be attributed to issues only fought via paying into the cause.)

It's the modern equivalent of AMWAY.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
CO2 certainly is a greenhouse gas, with a logarithmic effect.


Super - we're in agreement them (:



Aww, sorry if I intimidate you ):


Okay, that made me lol right there.


Good - why so serious D:
edit on 7-8-2017 by melatonin because: i suck



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

OK, so I don't know what you do and I don't care really (: but extrapolating myself I assume something analytical. Just a guess but don't matter.

If so, I'm sure you'll know that sometimes equipment sucks. It's not great but stuff happens.

In an ideal world, you identify and fix. That's what they did. And with a global network of weather stations there are going to be problems now and again. Not as if the organisations using and maintaining this network have bottomless pits of cashdollas - most if not all are government agency funded.


edit on 7-8-2017 by melatonin because: simpsons fat fingers



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

"Interestingly, since January 2014, the last 2 and half years, 770 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published in scholarly journals that call into question just how settled the “consensus” science is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing dominates weather and climate changes, or that non-anthropogenic factors play only a relatively minor and inconsequential role."


Seems legit...


Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of CS = 0.7 °C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of SS = 0.17 °C (at 0.1 % increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40 % and the Sun 60 % to global warming over the last century.


If this is the extent of calling the consensus into question, don't think there's a a major problem.

So CO2 contributes 40% over some period of time - can't be bothered finding the original source. Seems CO2 is a concern from their findings. Solar is known to have had an effect in the early 20th century - nothing new.

Read a few more abstracts and I wouldn't suggest overstating the impact of these supposed problematic studies. A lot of noise really. The Cook study isn't even the only study to do this - been a handful. All show similar.

We get a dose of blog 'science' and well I never - it's now due to those dastardly scientists and their corrupt peer-review process D:

edit on 7-8-2017 by melatonin because: quotes are doing my head in >:|



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Wow. There was a time when I thought humanity had a chance, but with each passing year it becomes more obvious that George Carlin was right. Homo Sapiens is an evolutionary dead end. Save the Earth? Earth has been here 4.5B years strong and has endured far worse than anything we can throw at her. She is going to shake us off like fleas on a dog. It's not necessary we destroy ourselves, of course; it's just that we will. Greed. Ignorance. Denial. Just plain stupidity even. Does it really matter why? As an aside, the debate should not be framed as a global warming problem. Rather the debate should focus on our environmental problem which is far worse than worrying about rising temperatures. And, you know, I don't really care. If people are so stupid to allow this to happen; then so be it. I'll continue to do my part to be good to my fellow man and to exist with a small footprint. But that's all I have control over; so I'm good with that. No truer words were ever spoken than: what goes around comes around. And, baby, it coming around fast and strong.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin


Uh-huh. Given the constituents of the atmosphere we can ignore most, though. And especially those with negligible IR absorption. So we can ignore the major components of the earth's atmosphere - N2, O2. They are 98%ish of the earth's atmosphere.

You seem to have forgotten water vapor. Depending on the location, it can make up a significant portion.


So CO2 is a GHG, and a major atmospheric GHG - the obsfuscation is not required.

Yeah, let's get rid of the obfuscation. I agreed that, per your definition, carbon dioxide is a 'greenhouse gas.' I did NOT agree that it is a 'major atmospheric greenhouse gas.' That is simply your assertion, and it is not borne out quantitatively. Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, and has one... single, unity, uno... narrow spectral line in the infrared range of the expected blackbody radiation band of the planet.

So CO2 is a greenhouse gas per your definition, but it is not a major contributing factor to atmospheric warming - the leaps to conclusions are not necessary.


Not the way it works, redneck. The system is in equilibrium, haha. You can try it yourself - do the experiment and measure temperature over time with no external heat source. It would eventually equilibrate to the external temperature.

That is exactly the way it works. Energy attempts to reach equilibrium... it's this thing called entropy. Maybe you've heard of it? Or maybe a long, scary word called t-h-e-r-m-o-d-y-n-a-m-i-c-s? it's pronounced thur'-mo-die-nam'-ix.

A chemical reaction that produces pressure will work faster when the pressure is released. Heat will travel from one body to another until they have the same temperature. How fast this happens depends on how much energy they contain and how easily they give up that energy. Have you ever wondered why water is used so much for a coolant? Because it can accept a huge amount of energy. So of course water instead of air was used in the experiment... that way he can let it sit for an hour and be assured not all of the pressure energy has dissipated. What was the result in 6 hours? 12? a day?

The key word is 'eventually.'


It was a simple experiment based on simple thermodynamic principles. Yet we seemed to have gotten mixed up in all sorts of side issues. Thus far we need bottles with flora (and fauna?) and maybe even a planet sized laboratory.

Ah, flexing your ridiculous hyperbole muscles again.

This is why I asked for your precise definition of 'greenhouse gas' early on, mel. It matters because just asserting that carbon dioxide has IR spectroscopic components does not prove it has substantial impact on atmospheric radiation reflection. I know, I know, this science and logic stuff is hard, but I have faith in you. You can grasp these simple concepts.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin


In an ideal world, you identify and fix. That's what they did. And with a global network of weather stations there are going to be problems now and again. Not as if the organisations using and maintaining this network have bottomless pits of cashdollas - most if not all are government agency funded.

Well, then, it looks like dropping out of the Paris Accord will fight Global Warming more than staying in it. Now we have $100B to spend on thermometers that work. Yay!

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

You seem to have forgotten water vapor. Depending on the location, it can make up a significant portion.


Didn't forget it at all. Just never mentioned it. Likewise I didn't mention methane either.

You're obfuscating again.


Yeah, let's get rid of the obfuscation. I agreed that, per your definition, carbon dioxide is a 'greenhouse gas.' I did NOT agree that it is a 'major atmospheric greenhouse gas.' That is simply your assertion, and it is not borne out quantitatively. Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, and has one... single, unity, uno... narrow spectral line in the infrared range of the expected blackbody radiation band of the planet.


It's the scientific definition.

It is a major GHG, lol. Not even debatable. Is associated with major climate shifts across geological ages.


So CO2 is a greenhouse gas per your definition, but it is not a major contributing factor to atmospheric warming - the leaps to conclusions are not necessary.


One of burdman's articles suggest we can attribute 40% of warming during some recent period to CO2.

Apparently this study is a problem for the consensus.

This is the problem with denialist arguments - they are incoherent, opportunistic, and have little scientific validity. In sum, embarrassing...



This is why I asked for your precise definition of 'greenhouse gas' early on, mel. It matters because just asserting that carbon dioxide has IR spectroscopic components does not prove it has substantial impact on atmospheric radiation reflection. I know, I know, this science and logic stuff is hard, but I have faith in you. You can grasp these simple concepts.

TheRedneck


Haha, you always make me smile. In a page or two we moved from you denying CO2 is GHG to claiming it is now due to my definition and hedging your bets.

It's not my definition. It has been around since the days of Tyndall and Arrhenius. That was 150ish years ago in the 19th century. It is now the 21st century. Time to catch up (:


edit on 7-8-2017 by melatonin because: jelly on plate, wibble wobble wibble wobble...



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: melatonin
Well, then, it looks like dropping out of the Paris Accord will fight Global Warming more than staying in it. Now we have $100B to spend on thermometers that work. Yay!

TheRedneck


I suppose we could actually tax oil and coal producers and combusters to actually pay for the mess they are creating. Shocking idea, I know D:

Thankfully, the vast majority of the science works really well the vast majoity of the time. Highlighting one or two instances in silly gotcha moments might bamboozle the less than knowledgable. Won't change the reality though (:

If you really care about your ideology, you might want to consider the impact of such blatant obvious misinformation and intellectual dishonesty. Can't see future kids forgiving this BS game you guys are playing with their welfare.
edit on 7-8-2017 by melatonin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin


Didn't forget it at all. Just never mentioned it. Likewise I didn't mention methane either.

Water vapor can account for up to 5% of the troposphere. Carbon dioxide accounts for 0.04%. Methane comes in under a whopping 0.0002%.

Who's obfuscating? Or are you just projecting your obfuscation?


It's the scientific definition.

It is a major GHG, lol. Not even debatable. Is associated with major climate shifts across geological ages.

Ah, a great example of twisting an argument around with innuendo. Al Gore would be proud.

But no, it is not a major anything. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. And, as has been said many times before, if it is not debatable, it is not scientific by definition. It's religion.


One of burdman's articles suggest we can attribute 40% of warming during some recent period to CO2.

Er, no. That was your attempt at numerology talking.


Haha, you always make me smile. In a page or two we moved from you denying CO2 is GHG to claiming it is now due to my definition and hedging your bets.

No hedging. I am saying the same thing I have been saying for over a decade now on this site: carbon dioxide levels are not capable of producing an appreciable amount of warming at anywhere near present levels.


It's not my definition. It has been around since the days of Tyndall and Arrhenius. That was 150ish years ago in the 19th century. It is now the 21st century. Time to catch up (:

Of course it's your definition. At least it was a couple pages ago. Have you decided to redefine 'greenhouse gas' now? If so, I need clarification of your new definition.

Or would sticking to a single definition hamper you too much?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: melatonin


If you really care about your ideology, you might want to consider the impact of such blatant obvious misinformation and intellectual dishonesty. Can't see future kids forgiving this BS game you guys are playing with their welfare.


This message was brought to you by The Church of Climatology.

REPENT!





posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

What in the name of Robert E. Lee are you on about now?

The Paris Accord admittedly would have done nothing except cost $100B. Are you saying it is better to throw money at a useless exercise in feel-good politics than verify/correct sensor data?


Can't see future kids forgiving this BS game you guys are playing with their welfare.

Are you looking in a mirror when you type this stuff?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I think he just put a curse on us?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: melatonin
Water vapor can account for up to 5% of the troposphere. Carbon dioxide accounts for 0.04%. Methane comes in under a whopping 0.0002%.

Who's obfuscating? Or are you just projecting your obfuscation?


So you mention water vapour, methane and CO2. All are major GHGs, lol.


Ah, a great example of twisting an argument around with innuendo. Al Gore would be proud.

But no, it is not a major anything. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. And, as has been said many times before, if it is not debatable, it is not scientific by definition. It's religion.


Gawd - this same argument could have happened 10 years ago. It's a well-established definition, of course it's not debatable, lol.

It's just a trace gas, plants eat it, religion, Al Gore's underpants blah blah D:


Er, no. That was your attempt at numerology talking.


Wow, OK. It's data from a scientific study.

It's where scientists publish their data.

Not my numerology, lol. I just posted the numbers.


No hedging. I am saying the same thing I have been saying for over a decade now on this site: carbon dioxide levels are not capable of producing an appreciable amount of warming at anywhere near present levels.


You'd be lucky to even find a denialist scientist to agree with you. They generally suggest lower forcing, but not that's it's unappreciable.

You have no basis for this position at all. But I didn't expect anything less (:


Of course it's your definition. At least it was a couple pages ago. Have you decided to redefine 'greenhouse gas' now? If so, I need clarification of your new definition.

Or would sticking to a single definition hamper you too much?

TheRedneck


Wut? Tyndall showed the nature of GHGs in 1859. That's over 150 years ago. It's ancient news for science. The definition is well-established.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DBCowboy

I think he just put a curse on us?

TheRedneck


He did.

My sea levels are rising and it's very uncomfortable now.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: melatonin

What in the name of Robert E. Lee are you on about now?


Who's that?


The Paris Accord admittedly would have done nothing except cost $100B. Are you saying it is better to throw money at a useless exercise in feel-good politics than verify/correct sensor data?


Feel-good politics? Hmm. Haven't checked the Paris Accord. No idea what it suggests. Been too busy in work.

What you suggested was that we use that money to buy thermometers. I suggested maybe make those emitting CO2 pay. Seems a little fairer than expecting all to pay for it from government coffers.



Can't see future kids forgiving this BS game you guys are playing with their welfare.

Are you looking in a mirror when you type this stuff?

TheRedneck


Why would I - I'm not engaging in intellectually dishonest disinformative games. My boy actually works on this sort of stuff. I did my job (:

Still love ya RD (:
edit on 7-8-2017 by melatonin because: zig a zig ah!



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This message was brought to you by The Church of Climatology.

REPENT!



Haven't you got something related to variance to perseverate over D:



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This message was brought to you by The Church of Climatology.

REPENT!



Haven't you got something related to variance to perseverate over D:


People tend to ignore me when I bring up legitimate concerns over the data collected.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
People tend to ignore me when I bring up legitimate concerns over the data collected.



Or maybe it just not worth bothering. Easier to pick the most obvious angles to highlight the specious nature of denialist argumentation clearly and concisely.

Job's a goodun D:



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join