|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:44:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
|
There was little left to say there. It seemed as if all had taken up the bashing of a magazine. I am not in the habit of bashing or defending a particular magazine.
|
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 : 19:46:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
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. |
Just wondering why the data has not been corrected. I could have postulated that they are just lazy.
|
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 : 19:47:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Why would not the NOAA correct the information presented to the public? |
What make you think they won't?
|
I just know that they have not.
|
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 : 19:52:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
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. |
Can you wave your hands any more frantically, Jerome? These graphs were not created for the eyes of just any observer, but for the trained scientists who read the literature. Such scientists understand how to interpret the graphs, and so aren't bothered by unequal axes, and can read the source articles to find the basis for the zero point.
(Why do you think it should be the average of the data? In the case of these two graphs, the zero point would then be different, which would be an obvious, but still trivial, problem.)
In other words, the graphs are most certainly not a farce to their intended audience, especially since the people who "debunked" the first graph were specifically demanding that the second graph be created.
In still other words, your objections have nothing whatsoever to do with the point of the graphs. Your claim of intentional dishonesty requires the assumption that the scientists are as naive about the subject and about interpreting graphical data as you are, Jerome. Worse, it assumes that the graphs are the only things put forth as an argument (which is certainly not the case with the first graph), and that the graphs were intended to be compared to each other. And those assumptions are the real dishonesty here. Whether you've done this to yourself, Jerome, or someone else's propaganda has swayed you, the problems created by the false assumptions you are working with belong to nobody but you.
Just look at your objections again: not once do you even attempt to claim that the data or methods are wrong, only the superficial presentation bothers you. The science, Jerome, runs much deeper. |
- 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 : 19:58:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
There was little left to say there. It seemed as if all had taken up the bashing of a magazine. I am not in the habit of bashing or defending a particular magazine. |
You claimed that there was science presented in the Hudson List. You claimed that the data contradicted the consensus. You failed entirely to support the former claim, and parroted the Hudson List on the latter, despite the Hudson List authors being demonstrably wrong in their conclusions. Now, you wave your hands again, and apparently think it's all a matter of taste, so you drop it despite the factual (not subjective) claims you made earlier. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:00:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
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?
|
Oh, good, so he is dodging. I'm not crazy. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:05:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
There was little left to say there. It seemed as if all had taken up the bashing of a magazine. I am not in the habit of bashing or defending a particular magazine. |
You claimed that there was science presented in the Hudson List. You claimed that the data contradicted the consensus. You failed entirely to support the former claim, and parroted the Hudson List on the latter, despite the Hudson List authors being demonstrably wrong in their conclusions. Now, you wave your hands again, and apparently think it's all a matter of taste, so you drop it despite the factual (not subjective) claims you made earlier.
|
Yes, the science contradicts the consensus. As I said, there was nothing more to say.
|
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 : 20:05:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Why would not the NOAA correct the information presented to the public? |
What make you think they won't?
|
I just know that they have not. |
The link you provided was to a section in which they discussed making revisions to older data, so you know wrong. That they haven't yet done so on a correction that occured less than two months ago is hardly a reasonable premise upon which to be dismissive. |
- 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 : 20:07:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
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. |
Can you wave your hands any more frantically, Jerome? These graphs were not created for the eyes of just any observer, but for the trained scientists who read the literature. Such scientists understand how to interpret the graphs, and so aren't bothered by unequal axes, and can read the source articles to find the basis for the zero point.
(Why do you think it should be the average of the data? In the case of these two graphs, the zero point would then be different, which would be an obvious, but still trivial, problem.)
In other words, the graphs are most certainly not a farce to their intended audience, especially since the people who "debunked" the first graph were specifically demanding that the second graph be created.
In still other words, your objections have nothing whatsoever to do with the point of the graphs. Your claim of intentional dishonesty requires the assumption that the scientists are as naive about the subject and about interpreting graphical data as you are, Jerome. Worse, it assumes that the graphs are the only things put forth as an argument (which is certainly not the case with the first graph), and that the graphs were intended to be compared to each other. And those assumptions are the real dishonesty here. Whether you've done this to yourself, Jerome, or someone else's propaganda has swayed you, the problems created by the false assumptions you are working with belong to nobody but you.
Just look at your objections again: not once do you even attempt to claim that the data or methods are wrong, only the superficial presentation bothers you. The science, Jerome, runs much deeper.
|
Honesty, how many people that look at those graphs would discern the improper placement of the zero point?
|
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 : 20:09:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Why would not the NOAA correct the information presented to the public? |
What make you think they won't?
|
I just know that they have not. |
So you conceed then that inventing ulterior motives and conspiracy theories to explain why they have not yet updated the data is just silly, right? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:14:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Yes, the science contradicts the consensus. As I said, there was nothing more to say. |
You've presented nothing but dogma, now. No argumentation. No data. No logic. No science. Just dismissiveness, which is massively hypocritical to your stated goal of provoking thought. Or is it the case that provoking thought in your brain, Jerome, is prohibited?
How can the Hudson List possibly contradict the consensus?
Are you aware of a means by which a natural cycle prevents human activities from causing warming?
Are you aware of a mechanism through which the Sun could prevent people from wrecking the climate?
Those are, effectively, the two primary premises of the Hudson List. If you can explain them, using rock-solid data, logic and scientific principles, then you will see people here agree with you. |
- 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 : 20:15:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Oh, good, so he is dodging. I'm not crazy.
|
Heh heh, yeah I contemplated calling him on that but frankly it's not worth the effort to try and keep him on point. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:19:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Honesty, how many people that look at those graphs would discern the improper placement of the zero point? |
I asked you why you would set it anywhere else, and this is your non-answer? The zero point doesn't matter to the intent of the graphs, Jerome. If the zero point were where you pontificate it should be (why?), or fifteen meters off the top of the page, doesn't matter to the point of the graphs. A point with which you refuse to engage, as is apparent from all this dancing around.
Once again, you're not provoking thought, you are dismissing the substance of an argument based upon superficial irrelevancies. |
- 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 : 20:21:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
So you conceed then that inventing ulterior motives and conspiracy theories to explain why they have not yet updated the data is just silly, right?
|
Sure.
But, I never invented an ulterior motive. You assumed my meaning was conspiracy; this is why I stated that it could be laziness.
|
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 : 20:25:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Honesty, how many people that look at those graphs would discern the improper placement of the zero point? |
I asked you why you would set it anywhere else, and this is your non-answer? The zero point doesn't matter to the intent of the graphs, Jerome. If the zero point were where you pontificate it should be (why?), or fifteen meters off the top of the page, doesn't matter to the point of the graphs. A point with which you refuse to engage, as is apparent from all this dancing around.
Once again, you're not provoking thought, you are dismissing the substance of an argument based upon superficial irrelevancies.
|
The point of this thread was the use or non use of data and the presentation thereof to create a public thought.
Yes, the presentation of the data on the graphs is relevant to the talk. |
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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
NASA-1934 Warmest Year on Record!
