How to lie statistically?

a reply to: FyreByrd

Not true if unable to withstand challenges and testing... thus: "climate change deniers" treated like it is some stigma and must be shunned and rejected. Sorry, science that doesn't encourage challenges isn't science, it's religion. We've seen it all before in the former of how religions treat blasphemy...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

Climate scientists get their data from equipment.

Climate scientists get their data from volunteers all over who collect the data from equipment.


I question the data.

I don't question the physics.

I think that people are postulating on flawed data.

x + y = 3

Scientists say that x =1 and y = 2.

If what they say is correct, then the answer will always be 3. I don't question the math.


I question whether x is really 1 and y is really 2.

The data supports the physics. If you are questioning the veracity of the data, it still doesn't change the physics. There are all sorts of equipment being used, from buckets and mercury thermometers to infrared and microwave sounders. Measurements are being made from space, by weather balloon, from oceans, weather stations, and beyond. That's just for temperature, too... there are also ice, atmospheric composition, weather, and other observations along with the suite of equipment and tools that measure the various relevant metrics.

It's a very, very broad thing you are asking for, and I'm more of an outside observer (also this hotel internet is atrocious).

a reply to: Greven

I'm not a climate scientist, but I am an equipment engineer.

I question the data retrieval and the data manipulation.

An old saying in statistics. . .

"Torture numbers long enough and they'll give you any answer you want."

Someone threw a Global Warming party and didn't invite me. I'm hurt... so hurt I haven't read all the thread yet, but I wanted to let folks know I was here.

The OP makes a good observation - errors, when random, will typically fall on either side of the actual result. Yet, it seems every time an error is discovered, it tends to err on the side of heat. Now, that's either the most amazing set of data ever investigated by science, or there's a built-in bias. I don't believe in that type of happenstance, so it has to be the bias.

What's really sad to me is how many people can still accept these results and claim that Global Warming is an actual realistic theory. It's almost like their whole reason for being has become proving that we are all doomed. I did look at melatonin's little YouTube demo he posted on page 1, and it's a good example of what I am talking about: there is no measurement of carbon dioxide released from the Alka-Seltzer pills, and no consideration taken to ensure equal pressure between the bottles or verify how much chemical heat is released during the fizzing... but it's absolute, irrefutable proof that we are all doomed unless we pay billions of dollars to the likes of Al Gore so he can use all that energy instead of us.

Yeah, right.

Kudos to the Aussies for finding and fixing their error. Now we just need to find and fix the rest of the data observations and we might get the truth.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Tempter

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?

From Science Daily

Fossil fuel is a general term for buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials, formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.

www.sciencedaily.com...

So yes - part dead dino (or rino perhaps).

Don't believe a word of it. There simply wasn't enough carbon in plants and animals to create THIS much oil.

Now, I can't be certain how it was created, but I'm pretty sure all of the plants, animals and insects didn't mass bury themselves. And no, I won't buy global adhesion/cohesion as an acceptable answer to how it all coalesced.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hey you! Long time no see D:

The video was a high school lab demonstration - the sort of experiment that a civil engineer could readily do in his shed to see with their own eyes that CO2 is a GHG (:

If it was meant to be a quantitative rather than qualitative experiment, the equipment would have to be much fancier.

Anyway, as redneck always shows - follow the money. It's always been about the money. 'Truth' is simply a victim.

a reply to: melatonin

What were the CO2 ppm's in the left bottle compared to the right?

Oh wait, he didn't collect that data....

Nevermind that Earth isn't a sealed bottle and there isn't an alka-seltzer tablet the size of Brazil dissolving in the Pacific ocean... it's a science experiment! We must be skeered!

I like this youtube video:

a reply to: Teikiatsu

lol, why would it matter?

That wasn't the point /:

It was to demonstrate that CO2 is a GHG. And it is. It's a basic feature of the physical structure of the C-O bonds in CO2.

It's physics, haha.

Are you a civil engineer of straw houses?

originally posted by: melatonin
a reply to: Teikiatsu

lol, why would it matter?

That wasn't the point /:

It was to demonstrate that CO2 is a GHG. And it is. It's a basic feature of the physical structure of the C-O bonds in CO2.

It's physics, haha.

Are you a civil engineer of straw houses?

It matters because

a) the sealed bottle creates a pressure feedback as gas is released into the bottle, and
b) the amount of CO2 release into the sealed bottle is orders of magnitude greater than what is happening in the earth's atmosphere.

Anyone who remember their high school chemistry can tell you that. No engineering degree needed, and stop trying to intimidate people with that tired debate tactic.

It's an experiment that is designed to scare people.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Really? Did it scare you?

Once did an experiment where I produced gaseous bromine. That was a little scary. Not nice stuff. But didn't think that bottle expt was scary.

The experiment showed that CO2 is a GHG. Are you questioning this fact - one which has been known for over 150 years and is basic physics? lol

Aww, sorry if I intimidate you ):

a reply to: melatonin

Since you've taken to ridicule of other's backgrounds, what's your scientific pedigree? How much lab time do you have under your belt? How many projects have you seen through from conceptual to constructed? How many hours/weeks/years have you spent analyzing impacts of projects, including environmental?

Look, I wish AGW was accurate... in my field and career I'd stand to make a fortune off of it if it wasn't total BS. All those billions of tax dollars being pumped into AGW, they're not going to any actual changes because there's no reason to change. That money is going to board members, stake holders, and to advertising to scare more folks into boarding the ship... it's a scam, sorry you got sacked in but please keep buying those carbon credits because Elon Musk's losses shouldn't be covered by his own bank account.

a reply to: melatonin

You know ... if a federal inspector came to you in a private business and asked you why your testing method was so half-assed and you tried to use that excuse, they'd hang you and the company you work for out to dry ... just sayin'.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's not actually relevant, no?

Perhaps I have decades experience in science or maybe I flip burgers.

I'd rather facts and argument be the most relevant factor.

Interesting position, though. I'd much rather AGW wasn't accurate - then we could just do nothing and carry on regardless (:

Of course, we're effectively doing that anyway. Won't make a blindest bit of difference to me, but I'm not sure the next generation will thank us for navel gazing /:

a reply to: ketsuko

You and Teikiatsu completely misunderstand the point of the demonstration.

It had one aim - to show that CO2 acts as a GHG. It did so.

The uhming are ahing is irrelevant. It wasn't an attempt to model the earth's atmosphere, and pressure nor exact CO2 concentration affect the inference. One bottle had high CO2 the other had low. It was a basic qualitative experiment.

That's why I suggested that the criticisms were strawman arguments - they are not actually relevant to its aims.

a reply to: melatonin

Actually, when you crap on people for having no scientific background or knowledge in an attempt to claim special expertise for yourself, it does become relevant.

It's the logical fallacy of attempting to appeal to authority. In this case, you are doing it with two individuals who have backgrounds that have relevant scientific knowledge. I'm not speaking for myself, but you're slapping at my husband who's career is in a scientific field and deals heavily with statistics and knowledge of testing and experiments and gathering data and data sets and he has close to 20 years under his belt.

When he asks about the setup of an experiment, it's because he sees a weakness in it.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

AGW is very real. The efforts to combat it are very meager. The carbon tax was dreamed up by economists, who invariably fail in their pseudoscience. You cannot get around the physics, though.

The Earth's surface is much warmer than it should be due to greenhouse gases essentially warming the surface by stealing heat from significant chunks of the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing greenhouse gases increases this effect.

That's the simple, inescapable logic of it. Invariably, attacks against AGW include:
1) Saying the greenhouse effect isn't real (it is, and can be seen with infrared imaging or reasoned due to physical laws).
2) Saying carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas (it is, as you can easily see with spectroscopy).
3) Saying we aren't emitting that much CO2 (we are, as can be calculated by examining emissions and the increase in atmospheric concentration).
4) Saying the data is flawed (this is more nebulous and takes extraordinary effort to really tackle, which is why it's become a favorite point among so-called skeptics).

Unfortunately, we're in a bad spot. If we 100% stopped emitting carbon today, it is likely that we would experience rapid rise in temperature potentially more than a degree Celsius as many of the sulfates we emit would fall out of the atmosphere in weeks.

a reply to: ketsuko

No, appealing to authority would involve me claiming I have a scientific background, and therefore expecting you to place a higher weight on my argument (:

I haven't attempted to do that.

Claiming that one has a dense background in scientific methodology and statistics would be viewed as laying the basis for an argument from authority.

If you do have such relationships, I'm sure those people would freely tell you when you discuss in a scientific arena no-one gives a poop about a PhD etc. Most of those involved have a somewhat similar level of qualification and experience. It really is irrelevant at that level, lol.

a reply to: Greven

Back to the OP, then... this is not the first time (by a long shot) that the numbers have been proven to have been fudged. If all of this warming is obvious and self apparent, then why do the unmanipulated... errrr sorry, uncorrected numbers show basically no overall warming of Earth? Further, how is it science when you simply toss or alter any data inconvenient to the hypothesis?

Science stands up to challenges and testing. Science doesn't require multimillion dollar effort to shield the narratives, large numbers of websites devoted to shaming anyone who questions the theory, or paid discussion participants to ensure discussions don't dip into questioning the narrative. That's no longer science, it's much more akin to crusading against blasphemy... which is sort of the antithesis of science, ya?

a reply to: melatonin

Considering your mockery of Civil Engineers and my personal interest in knowing whether I'm talking with a parrot or a puppeteer, it seems a relevant question. Folks wouldn't take medical advice from a trash collector just because he listens to Healthline on the radio and watches CNN Health, at least I'd hope folks wouldn't, though these days signs seem to point towards that level of common sense being a declining commodity.