Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-01-2016, 09:25 AM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,717,211 times
Reputation: 1721

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by STWR View Post
As opposed to the other charmers on this thread?

Come on now, what forum do you think you're on right now?
Long time no hear from. Ok, joking aside, you are a welcome change as you do not claim to be the end all know all.

Hope you've been well.

And sequestration, reclamation, is still a much more viable and economically beneficial alternative than carbon credits. Carbon tax: only if it's neutral with income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-01-2016, 10:22 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,313,935 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Good thing you don't rely on your personality for a job.
Good thing you don't rely on writing pretend 'college papers'...oh wait. You do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 10:33 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,313,935 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
No. I'm a data specialist, among other things. The merhodolgy utilized is a gap fill from unreliable/missing piece data sets.

Try again
Nope. Not a gap fill. They removed the period from the Lake Suwa dataset that had unreliable/missing data- they didn't fill the gap. If you had read the referenced papers you'd know why. The Finland data had no gap. Try reading the paper.


BTW, Why do you assume you have more expertise in all the different fields of science involved in climate science than all the experts in their own fields?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 10:40 AM
 
29,918 posts, read 18,480,271 times
Reputation: 20668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
As per usual you prove you don't know what you're talking about. (despite the fact that you claim superlative expertise in all things scientific including many different fields of science completely outside your own supposed field). The authors weren't using simple linear regression like your supposed 'paper'. That's basic high school level stats and is enough for the simple 'study' you claim you did.

Clearly you didn't bother to read the paper, just eyeballed the chart posted by the OP, and made some stupid assumptions based on your own lack of knowledge and lack of expertise in more complex statistical analysis methods. They used methods like continuous segmented regression (CSR) among others:

Read the Methods section of the paper (because it's damned obvious you didn't):

Direct observations of ice seasonality reveal changes in climate over the past 320

We used segmented regression to test for abrupt changes in the trend of ice dates in Torne. Specifically, we wanted to test when a shift in the temporal trend of ice date may have occurred. To estimate the timing and magnitude of a change in the slope of ice dates, we used continuous segmented regression (CSR) models. In CSR, trend lines on either side of the estimated breakpoint intersect (hence making them “continuous”), but are allowed to have different slopes. In general, a CSR takes the form


is a latent variable representing ice dates, xi are the years of the time series, β0 is the intercept of the regression (ice date on year 0), β1 is the trend in ice date prior to any breakpoint (ice date per year), the ak are the breakpoints (k was either 1 or 2 for this study. Because the number of parameters increases with k, we limited k to avoid over-fitting the model), the βk+1 are the changes in the temporal trend at each of the k breakpoints compared to the trend prior to the breakpoint, and the εi are the errors. Note that the βk+1 parameters indicate the effect on ice date of years elapsed since the previous breakpoint once the breakpoint has passed.


Simply amazing. Again, can you tell me how many advanced degrees you hold in science and how many papers you have published in the scientific literature? Yes- that's right- ZERO (and it shows). Stop making a fool of yourself.

Did YOU READ that garbage article? There was no methods section which described in detail the method of data collection or the statistical analysis. Anyone could look at the data points, approximate the coordinates, and conduct a regression analysis of the faked line. However, it is not neccessary, as the "line" clearly does not reflect the data points. GO AHEAD- DO THE ANALYSIS. However, that would require some knowledge of stats, so it may be a little tough for someone who knows nothing of stats. But God knows that hasn't stopped you in the past. Do they let you do "statistical analysis" on the "ethics committee"?

This is the problem with the AGW cult members (such as yourself). You have no scientific training at all and cannot evaluate the validity of an article as YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO DO SO.

Hint: The most important part of any true scientific article is the METHODS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, not the introduction, results, or conclusions. But then again, you would not know that.

Further, look at the quality of the journal. Junk science finds its way into junk "journals", such as this. Did you actually know that "Scientific Reports" is an open access "online journal"?

http://www.nature.com/srep/publish/how-to-publish

You take garbage like this and accept it as the gospel truth, because you don't know any better. Try putting such an article on your CV and you would generate rounds of laughter. When you submit an article for publication, you submit it to the best journal possible. Why? Because articles in better journals have better editorial boards, circulations, are more cited, and means more when being reviewed for tenure. ONE ARTICLE in Science or NEJM would be worth thirty in junk journals.

Last edited by hawkeye2009; 05-01-2016 at 10:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 10:55 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,313,935 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Simply amazing. Again, can you tell me how many advanced degrees you hold in science and how many papers you have published in the scientific literature? Yes- that's right- ZERO (and it shows). Stop making a fool of yourself.

Did YOU READ that garbage article? There was no methods section which described in detail the method of data collection or the statistical analysis.

This is the problem with the AGW cult members (such as yourself). You have no scientific training at all and cannot evaluate the validity of an article as YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO DO SO.

Hint: The most important part of any true scientific article is the METHODS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, not the introduction, results, or conclusions. But then again, you would not know that.

Further, look at the quality of the journal. Junk science finds its way into junk "journals", such as this.
Simply Amazing. Do you have some brain injury that prevents you from reading the large detailed section of the paper headed "Methods"?

Direct observations of ice seasonality reveal changes in climate over the past 320

It was published in Nature- Scientific Reports. Are you claiming Nature - Scientific Reports (and the Nature publishing group) is a 'junk journal'?

http://www.nature.com/srep/about/faq
The 2014 Impact Factor for Scientific Reports is 5.578, according to the 2014 Journal Citation Reports ® Science Edition (Thomson Reuters, 2015). This places Scientific Reports 5th among all multidisciplinary science primary research journals.

That's also pretty hilarious considering you only ever post junkscience 'sources' to support your ridiculous pseudoscience assertions.

Your continual pompous narcissistic chest beating, your complete ignorance on this topic combined with your claim of 'expertise in all things science', your links to junk-science sources by laypeople and lack of links to any valid science sources, and your false assumptions that no-one else has any post grad degrees or has published academic work is really quite astounding.

Please continue making a fool of yourself.

Last edited by Ceist; 05-01-2016 at 11:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,716 posts, read 25,874,592 times
Reputation: 33793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
It was published in Nature- Scientific Reports. Are you claiming Nature is a junk journal? Your continual pompous narcissistic chest beating, your complete ignorance on this topic combined with your claim of 'expertise in all things science', your links to junk-science sources by laypeople and lack of links to any valid science sources, and your false assumptions that no-one else has any post grad degrees or has published academic work is really quite astounding.
First thread I've enjoyed on C-D in a long time, it's a joy to watch you "out" the experts here
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 11:28 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,313,935 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
You take garbage like this and accept it as the gospel truth, because you don't know any better. Try putting such an article on your CV and you would generate rounds of laughter. When you submit an article for publication, you submit it to the best journal possible. Why? Because articles in better journals have better editorial boards, circulations, are more cited, and means more when being reviewed for tenure. ONE ARTICLE in Science or NEJM would be worth thirty in junk journals.
Try citing some of the 'sources' you usually provide as references for a paper and try to get it published.

Conspiracy blogs and forum posts by laypeople, fake charts by Biblical nutters with no qualifications in any field of science who claim they can predict the climate using the Bible, junkscience blogs like NaturalNews, junkscience websites like http://principia-scientific.org/ - Sky Dragon Slayer cultists who claim the earth's natural greenhouse effect "violates the second law of thermodynamics", trashy tabloid press articles by journalists etc etc. You take garbage from all these junk non-science sources and "accept it a gospel truth", then preach it on this forum. Your posts certainly generate hoots of laughter.

But STILL, you have not yet posted even ONE published Journal article that has supported your nonsense assertions.

I haven't forgotten that you didn't even know how to do an online search and download an old article from JAMA that you claimed supported your assertion about doctors views on tobacco, while I was able to search for and download half a dozen old articles from JAMA and NEJM that refuted your claims in less than 30 minutes? You can't even access articles from medical Journals online let alone all the science Journals. Did you forget the ridiculous excuse you invented about waiting for "Yolanda the archivist" to send you a copy of a paper by fax? Seriously?

Last edited by Ceist; 05-01-2016 at 12:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 11:40 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,313,935 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
First thread I've enjoyed on C-D in a long time, it's a joy to watch you "out" the experts here
He's a hoot and a half, but he repeats the same old schtick over and over again. Has for years. Perhaps all that violent "head smacking" has had some negative cognitive consequences.
When he gets on a roll with the insults, the threads usually get shut down.

Last edited by Ceist; 05-01-2016 at 12:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,475,444 times
Reputation: 9675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
I hate to break it to you, but we are well beyond arguing over whether its AGW or just GW. It's real. It's here and its yours and my problem! What is so hard to understand about that? As we speak the Marshall Island's are being evacuated. Why? Because they will be underwater in less than a decade. The Navy is unable to argue that people are not drowning in the lower lying areas of a U.S. Territory! They would love to be able to turn their backs on the natives and deny that their concerns are valid.

Long before the temperature rise and the resulting oceanic and atmospheric instability make human life unsupportable, the economic and political instability caused by crop failures, property damage from meteorological events and etc. will precipitate war and/or civil unrest significant enough to threaten National Security. Long before that it will threaten economic growth and the profit schemes of the 1%. You should worry when that starts becoming evident. It will be in your lifetime.

I really cannot fathom the point of a thread like this at this point in time. Really? It's not our fault so we should just continue burning fossil fuels and raising the temperature of the atmosphere further because ... it's happening anyway? Unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. That kind of naive fatalism had a place in the Middle Ages when we thought the world was flat.
Nevertheless, conservatives will tell you that global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated against mankind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 12:15 PM
 
572 posts, read 278,144 times
Reputation: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
Nevertheless, conservatives will tell you that global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated against mankind.
That's pretty much the big issue here, isn't it?

I mean, I get that people aren't sure about what climate change will do to the planet, but the moment someone comes out with the 'hoax' narrative, I know I'm dealing with a nutjob who doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

This is when they're so far gone that it doesn't matter what's happening or why-- all that matters is that we don't blame fossil fuels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top