Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...you don't give a damn about the poor around the world. Stop being a total hypocrite.
This one is certainly Trait A in action (personal attack) yet again (yawn), mixed with Trait E (wishes to incite anger or emotion).
rlchurch doesn’t know me. I’ve never met him/her, yet he/she seems to have some sort of psychic powers or some mechanism wherein he/she knows my life and my heart. He/she knows what I care about. Amazing.
Question, Mr./Ms. rlchurch: are you gifted? Perhaps you have a special gift that allows you make such accusations with full knowledge backing up said accusation? Or are you just ‘blowing off’? You keep telling me that my credibility is diminished by some of the things I’ve written on this thread. If that is the case you HAVE NO credibility at all because all you know how to do is take stabs at others. That’s your only weapon… other than using reference to fancy catch phrases and making unsupportable claims.
Thus far my post has simply been self defense. Mr./Ms. rlchurch would love that it would remain so, thus avoiding discussion of the issue. It's banter and means nothing with respect to the issue at hand. But let’s try for some substance this time. Here is another reason that I mistrust (notice I didn’t say ‘completely deny’) the global warming hype.
Having a background in mathematics/statistics, I know the stunts statisticians pull to represent data in a way that is more favorable to the point they are trying to make (yes, statisticians do that all the time). It’s not that they are skewing the actual data (in most cases), but rather that they just present it in a way that, unless you look at it closely, it is apt to give a false impression. An earlier post mentioned this and I would like to expound upon it.
As an example, let me take the graph from Wikipedia’s global warming page. Let’s start by assuming that the data points are accurate (that’s an entire different can of worms which I won’t bother with here).
Deception A:
Notice the vertical scale: it goes from -.6 to .6 degree Celsius. That is a scale of 1.2 degrees Celsius on the vertical. For those not familiar with 1.2 degrees Celsius, it’s 2.16 degrees Fahrenheit--hardly perceptible to a typical human. And it's spread out over 150 years. The variation of the data goes from the extreme low on the left to the extreme high on the right. It looks pretty dramatic on the chart, doesn’t it? The typical eye catches that in a newspaper with a casual glace and it’s an ‘oh my God’ moment. We’re burning up! Yet it’s a variation that goes on in the daily heating/cooling cycles in minutes on any given day. If this vertical scale were presented in a more reasonable fashion, it would be represented in Fahrenheit (the American public is more familiar with that), would have a vertical scale that is more comparative to the typical daily temperature changes that we experience each day, and the horizontal would not be transformed to zero, but rather presented as the mean of the sample period in degrees.
Why isn’t this done? Because if it were, it would be very unimpressive! If you don’t believe me and you have a graphing calculator or know how to use a spreadsheet, try it. Use the mean of earth’s surface temperatures (around 59 degrees Fahrenheit, depending on which source you trust) as your X-axis. Take the years used on the chart (more on that below) as your X-values for the ordered pairs. For your Y-data, estimate the rise and fall of numbers from the chart’s blue dots (convert to Fahrenheit and either add for positive values or subtract for negative values from 59). Set the horizontal range to the high and low years shown on the graph. Set the vertical range to a more reasonable temperature range (certainly not 2.16 degrees) that we might experience on any give day—say 59 plus or minus 15 degrees (46 and 74) Plug it all in.
What do you see? You see a more fair representation of what is going on. What does it look like? It’s pretty unimpressive, isn’t it? It looks almost like a linear model with a slope of zero (a flat line). If you saw that in the newspaper, would you vomit your breakfast up? No. Exactly why it’s presented as it is. AGAIN, the data is not biased; it is just presented in a way that will over exaggerate. It’s called hype. Just the thing I’ve been trying to point out.
Deception B:
The reason for the upper end of the years used on the Wikipedia chart is obvious, but why do you think the lower boundary is set at around 1850? Convenience? Not a chance. A statistician studies this stuff typically as a math major for four years and as a statistics major for 2 (in a M Stats program). They know exactly what story they want the data to tell and how to make it tell it. The year was chosen to maximize the effect of the presentation. What do you think the mean temp is in say 1750, or 1420, or 700, or 4000 BC? Don’t bother to tell me we don’t know. Geology has pretty good techniques to estimate. Do you think perhaps the model would no longer show the trend of having an extreme positive slope?
Deception C:
This is actually part of B, but why do you think the statistician didn’t use the entire year range from the beginning of estimable time on this planet? It’s fairly easy to do on an HP 48 or a spreadsheet. What does the linear model look like? Pretty much a flat line. What does a polynomial regression look like? Pretty much a flat line. The amplitude of any variation is nearly zero. What do you think ANY regression technique yields? Not much different. The problem with presenting the data like this (for the statistician’s point) is that it’s like driving from New York to California for a timeline and them laying a yardstick on the pavement for our era in earth history. Any variation in the yardstick region isn’t even visible on the whole.
Now, rlchurch and others like you… you can certainly poke holes in what I’ve said above. But you know what? I can poke holes in anything you say, too. Ignoring all that I’ve said above, the basic, fundamental question remains unanswered after multiple inquiries: What is the ‘normal’ or optimal temperature for our planet over it’s history? Until you can answer that, you can’t really say if what is happening now in the pinpoint of our history (relative to the earth’s history) is an equalizing effect or an abnormality.
Now fire away. Why don't you call me an a**hole or uncaring or a hypocrite? Tell me what I do or do not care about. You're good at it. You should consider a career in psychic reading or name-calling (politics).
Please...Exxon does not compare to the funding of Governments, which are always looking for new and clever ideas to steal more from their citizens - GW is the latest reason.
GW-guru Hansen has been caught twice now using incorrect/false data to bolster his temperature claims.
Pay attention. There are tens of thousands of relevant scientists who disagree.
There aren't. And there isn't a single mainstream scientific professional society that dsiagrees with the IPCC findings. Where are all these "thousands of scientists?"
Here are what the top two scientific societies say:
AAAS -- "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."
NAS --"[SIZE=2][SIZE=2]The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it. Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming. Large, disruptive changes are much more likely if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue building up in the atmosphere at their present rate. However, reducing greenhouse
[LEFT]gas emissions will require strong national and international commitments, technological innovation, and human willpower."[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Exhibit 2:
This one is certainly Trait A in action (personal attack) yet again (yawn), mixed with Trait E (wishes to incite anger or emotion).
rlchurch doesn’t know me. I’ve never met him/her, yet he/she seems to have some sort of psychic powers or some mechanism wherein he/she knows my life and my heart. He/she knows what I care about. Amazing.
Question, Mr./Ms. rlchurch: are you gifted? Perhaps you have a special gift that allows you make such accusations with full knowledge backing up said accusation? Or are you just ‘blowing off’? You keep telling me that my credibility is diminished by some of the things I’ve written on this thread. If that is the case you HAVE NO credibility at all because all you know how to do is take stabs at others. That’s your only weapon… other than using reference to fancy catch phrases and making unsupportable claims.
Thus far my post has simply been self defense. Mr./Ms. rlchurch would love that it would remain so, thus avoiding discussion of the issue. It's banter and means nothing with respect to the issue at hand. But let’s try for some substance this time. Here is another reason that I mistrust (notice I didn’t say ‘completely deny’) the global warming hype.
LOL you get caught in fake concern for the world's poor, which will be much worse off when they have to cope with global climate change, and respond with a sanctimonious defense. Reality check. I didn't attack you, I attacked your hypocrisy.
Having a background in mathematics/statistics, I know the stunts statisticians pull to represent data in a way that is more favorable to the point they are trying to make (yes, statisticians do that all the time). It’s not that they are skewing the actual data (in most cases), but rather that they just present it in a way that, unless you look at it closely, it is apt to give a false impression. An earlier post mentioned this and I would like to expound upon it.
Great, I do too. Let's see how you measure up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
As an example, let me take the graph from Wikipedia’s global warming page. Let’s start by assuming that the data points are accurate (that’s an entire different can of worms which I won’t bother with here).
Deception A:
Notice the vertical scale: it goes from -.6 to .6 degree Celsius. That is a scale of 1.2 degrees Celsius on the vertical. For those not familiar with 1.2 degrees Celsius, it’s 2.16 degrees Fahrenheit--hardly perceptible to a typical human. And it's spread out over 150 years. The variation of the data goes from the extreme low on the left to the extreme high on the right. It looks pretty dramatic on the chart, doesn’t it? The typical eye catches that in a newspaper with a casual glace and it’s an ‘oh my God’ moment. We’re burning up! Yet it’s a variation that goes on in the daily heating/cooling cycles in minutes on any given day. If this vertical scale were presented in a more reasonable fashion, it would be represented in Fahrenheit (the American public is more familiar with that), would have a vertical scale that is more comparative to the typical daily temperature changes that we experience each day, and the horizontal would not be transformed to zero, but rather presented as the mean of the sample period in degrees.
The scale show zero and is showing the full range of the data. Nothing remotely wrong with this presentation. Assertion of distortion disproved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Deception B:
The reason for the upper end of the years used on the Wikipedia chart is obvious, but why do you think the lower boundary is set at around 1850? Convenience? Not a chance. A statistician studies this stuff typically as a math major for four years and as a statistics major for 2 (in a M Stats program). They know exactly what story they want the data to tell and how to make it tell it. The year was chosen to maximize the effect of the presentation. What do you think the mean temp is in say 1750, or 1420, or 700, or 4000 BC? Don’t bother to tell me we don’t know. Geology has pretty good techniques to estimate. Do you think perhaps the model would no longer show the trend of having an extreme positive slope?
A complaint is not the same as a proof. How about showing us the data extended back another 500-1000 years and we can see if it's a distortion. Assertion of distortion not proved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Deception C:
This is actually part of B, but why do you think the statistician didn’t use the entire year range from the beginning of estimable time on this planet? It’s fairly easy to do on an HP 48 or a spreadsheet. What does the linear model look like? Pretty much a flat line. What does a polynomial regression look like? Pretty much a flat line. The amplitude of any variation is nearly zero. What do you think ANY regression technique yields? Not much different. The problem with presenting the data like this (for the statistician’s point) is that it’s like driving from New York to California for a timeline and them laying a yardstick on the pavement for our era in earth history. Any variation in the yardstick region isn’t even visible on the whole.
The real question is does the choice of a different time range give us a different answer. No it doesn't. Assertion of distortion disproved.
Now, rlchurch and others like you… you can certainly poke holes in what I’ve said above. But you know what? I can poke holes in anything you say, too. Ignoring all that I’ve said above, the basic, fundamental question remains unanswered after multiple inquiries: What is the ‘normal’ or optimal temperature for our planet over it’s history? Until you can answer that, you can’t really say if what is happening now in the pinpoint of our history (relative to the earth’s history) is an equalizing effect or an abnormality.
Now fire away. Why don't you call me an a**hole or uncaring or a hypocrite? Tell me what I do or do not care about. You're good at it. You should consider a career in psychic reading or name-calling (politics).
Yeah that was pretty easy.
To answer your question about the "optimal" temperature, for purposes of mankind, it's the temperatures we have experienced over the last 100 years or so. We have spend a substantial amount of our resources developing an advanced society that is tailored to the individual local conditions where each of us live. A substantial climatic change would cause large dislocations. All we have to do is look to the consternation caused by Katrina to understand that weather and climate conditions substantially different from what we are prepared for are extremely expensive. Take Katrina's impact and extend it from a few million people to 6 Billion people and intelligent people will begin to understand why we want the status quo to continue.
Will the rich, give up all their petro-powered toys and estates for this "climate crisis"? Odds are 99 to
1 they won't! If these scientific-priest really believe what they say, why don,t they practice what
they preach?
I think it's real. Polar ice caps melting at the rate they are is a real deal, not a theoretical event. For one man's take on this, see:
- Tom Toles Cartoons - (washingtonpost.com)
LOL you get caught in fake concern for the world's poor, which will be much worse off when they have to cope with global climate change
Have you give any thought to what those 2 1/2 billion will do when they start clamouring and demanding energy sources to help make their lives easier?
I suppose you are of the mindset that will let those people continue to live in appalling conditions that ou wouldn't wish on a dog.
Aren't they entitled to improve their lives like we in the industrialized nations have done?
Aren't they entitled to all the materials things you have? How about one-tenth of the material things you have.
The main agenda of the GW-loons is to do away with fossil fuels - windmills and solar panels will not fuel the world's needs. Add those 2 1/2 billion in there - what will you do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch
...you don't give a damn about the poor around the world. Stop being a total hypocrite.
This one is certainly Trait A in action (personal attack) yet again (yawn), mixed with Trait E (wishes to incite anger or emotion).
rlchurch doesn’t know me. I’ve never met him/her, yet he/she seems to have some sort of psychic powers or some mechanism wherein he/she knows my life and my heart. He/she knows what I care about. Amazing.
Question, Mr./Ms. rlchurch: are you gifted? Perhaps you have a special gift that allows you make such accusations with full knowledge backing up said accusation? Or are you just ‘blowing off’? You keep telling me that my credibility is diminished by some of the things I’ve written on this thread. If that is the case you HAVE NO credibility at all because all you know how to do is take stabs at others. That’s your only weapon… other than using reference to fancy catch phrases and making unsupportable claims.
Thus far my post has simply been self defense. Mr./Ms. rlchurch would love that it would remain so, thus avoiding discussion of the issue. It's banter and means nothing with respect to the issue at hand. But let’s try for some substance this time. Here is another reason that I mistrust (notice I didn’t say ‘completely deny’) the global warming hype.
Having a background in mathematics/statistics, I know the stunts statisticians pull to represent data in a way that is more favorable to the point they are trying to make (yes, statisticians do that all the time). It’s not that they are skewing the actual data (in most cases), but rather that they just present it in a way that, unless you look at it closely, it is apt to give a false impression. An earlier post mentioned this and I would like to expound upon it.
As an example, let me take the graph from Wikipedia’s global warming page. Let’s start by assuming that the data points are accurate (that’s an entire different can of worms which I won’t bother with here).
Deception A:
Notice the vertical scale: it goes from -.6 to .6 degree Celsius. That is a scale of 1.2 degrees Celsius on the vertical. For those not familiar with 1.2 degrees Celsius, it’s 2.16 degrees Fahrenheit--hardly perceptible to a typical human. And it's spread out over 150 years. The variation of the data goes from the extreme low on the left to the extreme high on the right. It looks pretty dramatic on the chart, doesn’t it? The typical eye catches that in a newspaper with a casual glace and it’s an ‘oh my God’ moment. We’re burning up! Yet it’s a variation that goes on in the daily heating/cooling cycles in minutes on any given day. If this vertical scale were presented in a more reasonable fashion, it would be represented in Fahrenheit (the American public is more familiar with that), would have a vertical scale that is more comparative to the typical daily temperature changes that we experience each day, and the horizontal would not be transformed to zero, but rather presented as the mean of the sample period in degrees.
Why isn’t this done? Because if it were, it would be very unimpressive! If you don’t believe me and you have a graphing calculator or know how to use a spreadsheet, try it. Use the mean of earth’s surface temperatures (around 59 degrees Fahrenheit, depending on which source you trust) as your X-axis. Take the years used on the chart (more on that below) as your X-values for the ordered pairs. For your Y-data, estimate the rise and fall of numbers from the chart’s blue dots (convert to Fahrenheit and either add for positive values or subtract for negative values from 59). Set the horizontal range to the high and low years shown on the graph. Set the vertical range to a more reasonable temperature range (certainly not 2.16 degrees) that we might experience on any give day—say 59 plus or minus 15 degrees (46 and 74) Plug it all in.
What do you see? You see a more fair representation of what is going on. What does it look like? It’s pretty unimpressive, isn’t it? It looks almost like a linear model with a slope of zero (a flat line). If you saw that in the newspaper, would you vomit your breakfast up? No. Exactly why it’s presented as it is. AGAIN, the data is not biased; it is just presented in a way that will over exaggerate. It’s called hype. Just the thing I’ve been trying to point out.
Deception B:
The reason for the upper end of the years used on the Wikipedia chart is obvious, but why do you think the lower boundary is set at around 1850? Convenience? Not a chance. A statistician studies this stuff typically as a math major for four years and as a statistics major for 2 (in a M Stats program). They know exactly what story they want the data to tell and how to make it tell it. The year was chosen to maximize the effect of the presentation. What do you think the mean temp is in say 1750, or 1420, or 700, or 4000 BC? Don’t bother to tell me we don’t know. Geology has pretty good techniques to estimate. Do you think perhaps the model would no longer show the trend of having an extreme positive slope?
Deception C:
This is actually part of B, but why do you think the statistician didn’t use the entire year range from the beginning of estimable time on this planet? It’s fairly easy to do on an HP 48 or a spreadsheet. What does the linear model look like? Pretty much a flat line. What does a polynomial regression look like? Pretty much a flat line. The amplitude of any variation is nearly zero. What do you think ANY regression technique yields? Not much different. The problem with presenting the data like this (for the statistician’s point) is that it’s like driving from New York to California for a timeline and them laying a yardstick on the pavement for our era in earth history. Any variation in the yardstick region isn’t even visible on the whole.
Now, rlchurch and others like you… you can certainly poke holes in what I’ve said above. But you know what? I can poke holes in anything you say, too. Ignoring all that I’ve said above, the basic, fundamental question remains unanswered after multiple inquiries: What is the ‘normal’ or optimal temperature for our planet over it’s history? Until you can answer that, you can’t really say if what is happening now in the pinpoint of our history (relative to the earth’s history) is an equalizing effect or an abnormality.
Now fire away. Why don't you call me an a**hole or uncaring or a hypocrite? Tell me what I do or do not care about. You're good at it. You should consider a career in psychic reading or name-calling (politics).
This bears repeating because it is so good! I'd rep you if I could. Beautiful post.
Talk about putting someone in their place and showing exactly what they don't know.
The real question is does the choice of a different time range give us a different answer. No it doesn't.
Put up your chart, then. Show us.
Quote:
To answer your question about the "optimal" temperature, for purposes of mankind, it's the temperatures we have experienced over the last 100 years or so.
You.have.got.to.be.kidding.
For the "purposes of mankind", the last 100 years is the determinant of optimum temperature?
Do you think the earth cares about the purposes of mankind? So we just discount the last 6+ billion years and only count the last 100?
There is NO WAY you could ever convince me that you have a background in Math/stats based on just this ONE sentence of yours.
You and your "data" (and your one relevant sentence) are a perfect example of what is wrong with the theory - cherry-picking and fudging the data to try and "prove" your theory. You tailor the data, pure and simple.
Have you give any thought to what those 2 1/2 billion will do when they start clamouring and demanding energy sources to help make their lives easier?
I suppose you are of the mindset that will let those people continue to live in appalling conditions that ou wouldn't wish on a dog.
Aren't they entitled to improve their lives like we in the industrialized nations have done?
Aren't they entitled to all the materials things you have? How about one-tenth of the material things you have.
The main agenda of the GW-loons is to do away with fossil fuels - windmills and solar panels will not fuel the world's needs. Add those 2 1/2 billion in there - what will you do?
Actually it's more like 4 Billion and the only hope we have is to have renewable electricity and fuels ready by that time. There isn't enough fossil fuel to accommodate them and China is proving the environment can't absorb the pollution if they try to move up using 20th century technology.
I had quite a long discussion with some senior people associated with the World Bank on exactly this issue. Solar power is working today in quite a few village power systems in Africa and India. It scales very well in their economies. Algae based biofuels will also scale well in these environments. The "loons" are the troglodytes that think 20th century technology is the solution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
