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: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

How strange that skeptic favorite UAH totally disagrees with the notion that there has been cooling.

You realize that article is from 2008, right?




posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6


And it's an excellent radiation blocker to boot!


Have you a source for this statement?



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

Funny thing is, he's asking questions on variances with equipment and measurement also.

Let me ask you point blank, are there variances in equipment, measurement of data?

What formulae are used to explain the variances?

How long has the formulae been used?

I mean, your quick to dismiss anyone who is skeptical, so you must have all the answers!



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Let me ask you point blank, are there variances in equipment, measurement of data?

What formulae are used to explain the variances?

How long has the formulae been used?

I mean, your quick to dismiss anyone who is skeptical, so you must have all the answers!



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: burdman30ott6

But your scientists are paid for by the Heartland Institute so that's OK? The same "Institute" that has ties to Koch Brothers oil industry money?

Heartland Institute



We should listen to these people as much as we did the tobacco funded scientists.

They all have our best interests at heart D:



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
Well, my mind is changed

Thank God for those benevolent fossil fuel companies for showing us their products aren't having an effect on our climate.



You can stop calling them fossil fuels, btw. Do you still think oil comes from dead dinosaurs?



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

Let me ask you point blank, are there variances in equipment, measurement of data?

What formulae are used to explain the variances?

How long has the formulae been used?

I mean, your quick to dismiss anyone who is skeptical, so you must have all the answers!

I've spent several pages writing #loads of text in response to 'skeptics' who then just say what essentially amounts to 'nuh-uh' and you say I'm quick to dismiss anyone who is skeptical?

Depends on what you mean by 'equipment.' This is a pretty broad question.

Satellites have unknown variances. They could be as much as half a degree Celsius off; they are pretty good at wide coverage, but not so accurate to sub-degree measurements. Thermometers or radiosondes on the ground or in the atmosphere do not have the accuracy limitation, but instead have a coverage problem.

Microwave sounding was mostly pioneered by Drs. Spencer and Christy since the late 1970s.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I'm talking about variance studies between the types of equipment.

Variances between calibrated and un-calibrated equipment.

Who does the calibration, how often is the equipment calibrated?

Variance studies in locations.

Variance studies in time-of-day that the data is collected.

Variance studies in weather patterns correlated to data retrieval.


Show me the data!



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

Cause understanding the weather has nothing at all to do with understanding the climate. I'd roll my eyes, but they've been rolled so hard already that they're stuck up inside my skull by this point.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Reading a National Weather Service report in front of a green screen MUST obviously = years of academic training at a university in regards to rigorous climate study!!!

/s
edit on 6-8-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Anthony Watts was a media weatherman. He pointed at maps and made silly jokes.

He has no degree in anything. He is not a scientist.

He is now a blogger.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

Right??

Didn't the tobacco-funded scientists claim second hand smoke wasn't a "thing" at all? And before that, didn't the tobacco industry manage to fund "studies" claiming that smoking was actually healthy?

Yeah, industry-funded scientists always, always, always present unbiased science!



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

Only way I want my science!

Paid and brought to you by Corproration Co. (TM)

Science for a greener tomorrow D:



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6


And it's an excellent radiation blocker to boot!


Have you a source for this statement?



CO2 reflects infrared radiation... you can't argue against that from either side of this issue. If you believe the scam, then you must believe that CO2 is reflecting radiation coming upward off the planet and directs in back down... If that's the case, then it is also reflecting the radiation coming in directly from the solar source, keeping much of it from ever reaching the planet's surface to begin with.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
99 percent of climate scientists assure us man made climate change is real.

Almost all of the world's governments assure us it is real and are making plans.

The US dod assures us climate change is a strategic threat.


Some American right wing bloggers, laypeople, and oil company backed outlets claim its all a scam.


So it's a tiny group of people with no climate science qualifications, versus.... The rest of the fricking world....



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

Then show me the raw data and explain the variances within the data.


Should be easy, right?


Bring it!



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6


And it's an excellent radiation blocker to boot!


Have you a source for this statement?



CO2 reflects infrared radiation... you can't argue against that from either side of this issue. If you believe the scam, then you must believe that CO2 is reflecting radiation coming upward off the planet and directs in back down... If that's the case, then it is also reflecting the radiation coming in directly from the solar source, keeping much of it from ever reaching the planet's surface to begin with.



It doesn't work that way.

Co2 is like a blanket. Solar energy hits earth, warms air, warm air rises, is kept in by Co2. Doesn't block the energy coming in.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6


And it's an excellent radiation blocker to boot!


Have you a source for this statement?



CO2 reflects infrared radiation... you can't argue against that from either side of this issue. If you believe the scam, then you must believe that CO2 is reflecting radiation coming upward off the planet and directs in back down... If that's the case, then it is also reflecting the radiation coming in directly from the solar source, keeping much of it from ever reaching the planet's surface to begin with.


Wait, not only do you refute mankind's contribution to GW, you refute the very concept of the greenhouse effect? Oh boy..

:facepalm gif:



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: burdman30ott6

But your scientists are paid for by the Heartland Institute so that's OK? The same "Institute" that has ties to Koch Brothers oil industry money?

Heartland Institute



We should listen to these people as much as we did the tobacco funded scientists.

They all have our best interests at heart D:


The tobacco issue isn't fully resolved. The science doesn't fit with the established positions on the disease, either. Cigarette consumption started to decline in the US AFTER the lung cancer cases began to decline. In all likelihood, the leading cause of lung cancer in the US was from asbestos and radon in building materials, as the cases of lung cancer began to drop precipitously within a couple of years of these two substances being banned federally in most home and office construction. Tobacco became a scape goat because it was a much more compartmentalized and easy to target source for people's illnesses than the massive number of industries and federal agencies which had blessed using asbestos and materials which breakdown and produce radon gas.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz
99 percent of climate scientists assure us man made climate change is real.

Almost all of the world's governments assure us it is real and are making plans.

The US dod assures us climate change is a strategic threat.


Some American right wing bloggers, laypeople, and oil company backed outlets claim its all a scam.


So it's a tiny group of people with no climate science qualifications, versus.... The rest of the fricking world....


It's a victim-mentality.

The world vs. them (the climate denier conspiracy folks). They want attention and sympathy because everyone is against them.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join