|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2007 : 18:01:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Again, the charts that Kil linked to, that you clearly either ignored or could not read:
|
You know me well enough to know that I look at almost all links.
You do know I know how to read the charts.
Why the snide comment?
|
Since you interpreted the data completely wrong, either I can accept that you simply didn't look at the charts earlier (or didn't read them correctly), or I could call you a liar. I chose the former over the latter. Which of my options would you consider more "snide"?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 18:05:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Agreed. One does need to look at all the data.
|
I cannot believe you said that!
You must look at all the data and not cherry pick it. The totality of the data. This is because if you don't look at it all, you cannot possibly get an accurate view of the subject.
|
Yes, if you look at 120 years of data instead of the data encompassing the span of time the earth has existed it would be foolish to make a conclusion as to what will happen in the next 100 years.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 18:11:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Since you interpreted the data completely wrong, either I can accept that you simply didn't look at the charts earlier (or didn't read them correctly), or I could call you a liar. I chose the former over the latter. Which of my options would you consider more "snide"?
|
Why do you assume the correct answer?
Why do you attempt to belittle those that present data which may contradict your assumed answer?
This is nothing like critical thinking.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 18:19:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
Agreed. One does need to look at all the data.
|
I cannot believe you said that!
You must look at all the data and not cherry pick it. The totality of the data. This is because if you don't look at it all, you cannot possibly get an accurate view of the subject.
|
Yes, if you look at 120 years of data instead of the data encompassing the span of time the earth has existed it would be foolish to make a conclusion as to what will happen in the next 100 years.
|
True enough. All the last 120 years will tell you is that there are recent enhancing factors to consider.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 18:28:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
True enough. All the last 120 years will tell you is that there are recent enhancing factors to consider.
|
This is the problem. We are examining data over a 120 year period and concluding that this 120 years is indicative of the next 100 years.
We know so little. We just like to believe we know. In the 30's we thought there was global warming, in the 70's we thought there was global cooling. What exactly makes you think the today we know and are correct as to what the factors are that cause climate change?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 18:39:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It has since been debunked.
 |
Right, now we have this:
Which is substantially different how, Jerome? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 18:41:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Agreed. One does need to look at all the data. |
And when one does that, whether 1998 or 1934 was the hottest for the continental 48 is a completely irrelevant question. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:00:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It has since been debunked.
|
Right, now we have this:
Which is substantially different how, Jerome?
|
Look at the graphs. Look at the numbers on the vertical axis of both graphs.
One axis presents data from .6 change to -.6 change.
The other presents data from .6 change to -1.0 change.
This is an intentional dishonest skewing of the data for the benefit of the eyes of the observer.
You will also notice on both graph the zero point (average) is obviously not the average of the data presented.
These graphs are a farce.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:01:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Agreed. One does need to look at all the data. |
And when one does that, whether 1998 or 1934 was the hottest for the continental 48 is a completely irrelevant question.
|
Unless you are using the phrase "1998 hottest year on record" to sell a story.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:01:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You are missing the point.
When 1998 was the hottest year on record it was presented as pop culture evidence that man was causing warming.
When 1934 was determined to be the real hottest year on record it is claimed irrelevant. |
Wow-- I'm totally wrong. I thought he'd dodge the issue or change the subject. In fact, he just repeats the lie!! I should have known, though. |
How is this a lie? |
It was pointed out that your argument was based on a false premise. You seem to have ignored that.
Let's be clear globally 1998 was hotter than 1934. The hottest year in the United States or China or Australia or any other particular place is irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.
So yeah it is at least misleading of you to carry on using the 1998 1934 comparison without specifying that it's confined to the US. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:08:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Agreed. One does need to look at all the data. |
And when one does that, whether 1998 or 1934 was the hottest for the continental 48 is a completely irrelevant question.
|
Unless you are using the phrase "1998 hottest year on record" to sell a story. |
No, even then it is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if the phrase were to read "1998 hottest year on record in the continental United States". |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:11:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This is the problem. We are examining data over a 120 year period and concluding that this 120 years is indicative of the next 100 years. |
No, "we" aren't doing any such thing. The climate scientists studying this question have data going back at least sixty-five million years. The idea that those scientists are as ignorant of the data as you are is the height of arrogance, isn't it?| We know so little. We just like to believe we know. |
No, you're missing the point of doing science in the first place. With the attitude you express here, tea-leaf reading may be as good an epistemology as science.| In the 30's we thought there was global warming... |
Who thought that?| ...in the 70's we thought there was global cooling. |
The popular press promulgated such ideas, but there was never a consesus. And nowadays, conservative and libertarian propagandists repeat the "global cooling" mantra to try to make people believe that there was a consensus as strong as today's is on warming.| What exactly makes you think the today we know and are correct as to what the factors are that cause climate change? |
The very question misses the point. All we ever have is "best available evidence and sound argument," not scripture. Waiting for scripture from scientists (forever) when the science suggests severeal different sorts of public health trajedies is tantamount to negligent homocide. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:17:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
No, even then it is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if the phrase were to read "1998 hottest year on record in the continental United States".
|
NOAA still thinks that 1998 is the hottest year in the US.
It looks like correcting incorrect data might be not in their best interest.
Why would not the NOAA correct the information presented to the public?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:17:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
In fact; most here would attest that I generally do not let go, as opposed to your assertion that I abandon threads. |
Did you take a poll? How did you determine what "most" would attest to?
Here, by the way, is a discussion you seem to have abandoned. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:37:06 [Permalink]
|
Hmmm... that report was last updated on May 1, 2007. How do you know they still think that? And what is your basis for saying that correcting the data might not be in their best intrest? Or are you just blowing smoke.
| Why would not the NOAA correct the information presented to the public? |
What make you think they won't? |
|
|
 |
|
NASA-1934 Warmest Year on Record!
