How to lie statistically?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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?

Dr. Roy Spencer / UAH is a very skeptic-friendly source.

It says this:
1970s Mean : -0.284583
1980s Mean : -0.142167
1990s Mean : 0.00125
2000s Mean : 0.10425
2010s Mean : 0.223583 (through May 2017).

Pretty clear trend there.

As far as challenges go... where are they?
Claiming CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas is nonsense. Claiming the greenhouse effect doesn't exist is nonsense. Claiming humans aren't emitting CO2 is nonsense.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

No mocking - I wouldn't get beyond lego houses. D: so I'm pretty damn sure you're the expert in that department.

Just saying that you build stuff, so even if you have no scientific background you could probably perform that demonstration and see for yourself. Change parameters to assess impact etc.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Still no support for your CO2 blocking radiation theory.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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.

Now you're using:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

No it doesn't become relevant to the argument - just relevant to those concerned with EGO.

a reply to: melatonin

It certainly has been a while. I hope you've been well.

Yes, it was obviously a simple science experiment, but it is also inherently flawed. Simply injecting CO2 in that manner would raise the pressure, and therefore the temperature, in the bottle. The release of CO2 from the pills would also interject some heat energy into the apparatus. So seeing a temperature rise where there should be a temperature rise is far from even qualitative.

Applicability to our environment would also need to be quantitative. Any relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide levels would not be a linear function.

And yes, follow the money... in this case, straight to Al Gore's mansion and back to the power companies.



TheRedneck

a reply to: Greven

Do you have a link to his data? It would be nice to know exactly which department he works in. Perhaps I could ask him about his work.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: melatonin

It certainly has been a while. I hope you've been well.

Hah! I'm sorta OK. Been an interesting few years D: hope all's well your end (:

Yes, it was obviously a simple science experiment, but it is also inherently flawed. Simply injecting CO2 in that manner would raise the pressure, and therefore the temperature, in the bottle. The release of CO2 from the pills would also interject some heat energy into the apparatus. So seeing a temperature rise where there should be a temperature rise is far from even qualitative.

Yeah. Some heat. If you noticed at the end of the vid, he posted a time-temp plot over an hour. You'd see that the trend over time in each bottle was not too dissimilar (i.e. time to plateau etc). It would have negligible effect.

Again, are you actually arguing that CO2 is not a GHG?

You're not that silly, redneck. I know that (:

Applicability to our environment would also need to be quantitative. Any relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide levels would not be a linear function.

Not relevant. It wasn't an attempt to model the earth's atmosphere. Just to demonstrate the GHG nature of CO2.

And yes, follow the money... in this case, straight to Al Gore's mansion and back to the power companies.

He's a clever guy that Gore. He created a time machine and laid the basis for climate change 150 years ago with those dastardly victorian british scientists. Damn him and his pesky planning o:

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yes, but CO2 isn't a pollutant. This is where they've got you by the short hairs, people believe the lie that CO2 is a pollutant. It is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere (3%)

WHere did you get 3% from please. I make it 0.04%

P

a reply to: FyreByrd

I predict within 10 years we will see "dumbass memes-argument via memes" listed as a logical fallacy.

originally posted by: growler
a reply to: burdman30ott6

When will this shrinking number of average citizens get tired of buying AL Gore more stocks and get tired of handing more control in their lives over for little more than a brief warm fuzzy feeling?

maybe if people took the same intelligence bypass and started believing the oil industry's mantra they keep crying.

its understandable those of little intellect latch onto conspiracies like this, no doubt you still believe the tobacco lobby claims smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

captain 'murica, single digit iq matching his shoe size.

It would've given you more credibility if you hurled a couple more insults in the mix.

a reply to: intrptr

Just wait until one day, an epidemic in the form of "a regular season heat wave" kills a few thousand people because their air conditioners broke.... they will write it off as your own negligence of keeping your ac maintained.... then the second time it happens a company will be to blame for bad chips.... domino after domino until the final day we all die because of a massive heat stroke... and the survivors.... us who kept our ac off and learned how to W A L K, rewrite the future of humans. And lay plans to stop us from making technological advances that lead us to video game controllers.

Climate change is real. But i still want to play video games.... so why not just create a network ofunderground cities instead of above ground cities?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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...

Thats true, yes. Science is a wonderful thing because we don't need beliefs or feelings or faith.

But the science is hard. 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.

Gore might have been visible in America, but outside America he is irrelevant and mostly invisible.

And this thing deniers do where they find one tiny little quirk in evidence and then declare the whole thing is hooey is terribly intellectually dishonest.

a reply to: GiulXainx

Just wait until one day, an epidemic in the form of "a regular season heat wave" kills a few thousand people because their air conditioners broke.... they will write it off as your own negligence of keeping your ac maintained..

It already happens. The hotter it gets on any given day the more people use AC, the more likely a power failure will create that effect. Only the most vulnerable due due to heat waves, the elderly and in-firmed. And thats because they can't get up to to get a glass of water or go outside.

The rest of GW is 'diplomacy'.

why not just create a network ofunderground cities instead of above ground cities?

Ever see THX1138 or Logan's Run?

Further to the earlier post and others regarding the ideological motivations behind climate change denial, thought it would be worth pointing anyone interested to probably the best discussion of the techniques used by these people.

Naomi Oreskes' book 'The Merchants of Doubt' covers the background and methods used from a historical perspective. A good summary of the basic argument here.

This analysis of right-wing politics and its impact on science shows how a handful of individuals have managed to obscure the truth on issues that range from the dangers of smoking to global warming. These right-wing libertarians include such scientists as Fred Seitz and Fred Singer – who both worked on the Cold War projects such as the US hydrogen bomb project and who helped set up institutions like the US's Heritage Foundation and Marshall Institute.

As demonstrated by Burdman, this doesn't just involve climate change but also covers tobacco (and CFCs, acid rain etc). It is an industry funded attempt to undermine the science via the public.

In fact, one might call it a conspiracy. I was always amazed that individuals predominately interested in conspiracies didn't seem too concerned by an obvious organised attempt to subvert the science for money and ideology. Rather, they seemed keener to perpetuate the aims of the conspriacy. Indeed, it did appear that there was more concern that I was highlighting political angle to the problem.

Hmmm. Sucks, really.

a reply to: melatonin

Hah! I'm sorta OK. Been an interesting few years D: hope all's well your end (:

A mixture. Lots of health issues around this place (feeble mother, diabetic wife, I had a third heart attack), but I also got my degree finally. At least we haven't frozen to death in a fiery flood yet.

Again, are you actually arguing that CO2 is not a GHG?

I guess that would depend on the definition of a "greenhouse gas." I have seen it used to refer to any gas which can absorb and re-emit radiation, and I have heard it used to refer to a gas that tends to raise the temperature of an atmosphere substantially. Tell me what your definition is, and I'll be happy to answer.

Not relevant. It wasn't an attempt to model the earth's atmosphere. Just to demonstrate the GHG nature of CO2.

Very relevant. I say the temperature differential was due to increased pressure from the release of additional gases, specifically carbon dioxide. Can you prove me wrong using that video?

He's a clever guy that Gore. He created a time machine and laid the basis for climate change 150 years ago with those dastardly victorian british scientists. Damn him and his pesky planning o:

Hahaha. Same old mel, the undisputed King of ridiculous hyperbole. It's nice to see some things haven't changed, I guess.

TheRedneck

a reply to: melatonin

Not relevant. It wasn't an attempt to model the earth's atmosphere. Just to demonstrate the GHG nature of CO2.

Yes, it is relevant.

What people have been trying to tell you is that if you want to prove your hypothesis beyond a shadow of a doubt is that you need to set up your experiment such that only possible factor causing a rise in temperature in the bottle would be the increased CO2, but since there are other factors that could also impact the temperature that haven't been accounted for like the increased pressure from the added gas ... you have a skewed result. You cannot look at the increased temperature and simply proclaim that it was all due to the increase in CO2 inside the bottle.

Your experiment is contaminated.

a reply to: melatonin

And how often do lab experiments fail to work out in the real world (hint - quit often)

Does a lab have its own sun, its own oceans, polar ice caps, glaciers, solar winds, ocean currents etc etc.

a reply to: Painterz

But the science is hard. 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.

No, the science is not that hard. What's hard is trying to find the science among all the pop-science that tends to spring up around it. Bil Nye, Michio Kaku, that sort of folk.

Science is based around experiments. Scientists develop a hypothesis, design an experiment to test it, and conduct the experiment to get data. That data is then analyzed against the expectations due to the hypothesis. If the results match the expectations, it is then published so others can examine the experiment and hopefully reproduce the data (peer review). If not, the hypothesis is examined, probably revised, and it starts over again.

That's about it, really. Nothing hard about that. Take an educated guess, figure out how to test your guess, test it, and if it looks right, let others know.

The problem comes in when the hypothesis or experiment is shown to be unreliable or biased in some way. It doesn't matter if 10,000,000 scientists agree with an experimental result; if one lone scientist can show bias in the design of the experiment, it is not confirmed. James Hansen can crow all he wants. TheRedneck can can shut him up by publishing one refution of his experiments.

But I'm not going to waste my time doing that officially. It would be a futile attempt at this time, because we are not debating science here. We are debating propaganda loosely (bigly, yugely loosely) based on scientific research. People talk about "scientific consensus" as though it were synonymous with "fact." It's not. If it were, we would be living on a flat circle riding on the back of a giant tortoise... at one time, there was a "scientific consensus" about that, too. Same with an earth-centric solar system. Same with draining the blood from a sick person being the best way to cure them. Thank God scientific consensus did not equate to fact back then (although the popular opinion was that it did).

Politics uses the one-person one-vote methodology. Science does not.

This also has nothing to do with a two-bit loudmouthed wanna-be tornado (full of hot air, spins whichever way the (political) wind blows, and destroys everything he touches) named Al Gore. He is nothing more than comic relief and a good example how ignorance of self-ignorance can be dangerous. This has to do with the attempts by some to question the methodology used, the veracity of the data, and how the conclusions were made, versus those who blindly follow the propaganda that "a bunch of scientists say so, so it must be true, derp, derp."

TheRedneck

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: burdman30ott6

If you were a Civil Engineer in South Florida where seasonal high tides cause coastal flooding every year, I think your opinion would be different.

Do you think the elevated CO2 levels that human activity caused and continues to add, will have no consequences?

edit on 6-8-2017 by jrod because: PS, Climatedepot is a biased source that sells doubt and ignores science

edit on 6-8-2017 by jrod because: Also you mentioned 'chicken littles' and Al Gore in your OP, this tells me you are not here to have an intellectual discussion

If you were not an idiot, and lived in southern Florida, you would study the sea levels throughout history and realize that with or without AGW, sea levels will rise/land will fall. It's hard to find the facts on the internet as anything sea level related is blasted with AGW tie in's. But looking into history through paleontologist eye's produces a much different picture. None of that proves or disproves AGW, but then, neither does your example.