Remember me
▼ Content

Climate change, how it is viewed through social media



Page 2 of 2<12
23-09-2016 23:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21582)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But surely an entire branch of science can't be wrong...

Wait, that's a variant of argument from authority.

This is kind of fun.


You are doing well. Keep it up!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-09-2016 00:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)


Oh, shit.

Also, it seems it was warmer 1000 years ago than it was now. The warning of "but evolution won't be able to keep up" doesn't make much sense.
24-09-2016 00:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)


aaaaaaaaaaa
Edited on 24-09-2016 00:12
24-09-2016 00:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"Now look at the end of xkcd's plot, where more errors are found. Start around Anno Domini 1900. By that time, thermometers are on the scene, meaning that new kinds of models to form global averages are being used. These also require uncertainty bounds, which aren't shown. Anyway, xkcd, like climatologists, stitches all these disparate data sources and models together as if the series is homogeneous through time, which it isn't.

Here's point (3): Because we can measure temperature in known years now (and not then), and we need not rely on proxies, the recent line looks sharper and thus tends to appear to bounce around more. It still requires fuzz, some idea of uncertainty, which isn't present, but this fuzz is much less than for times historical.

The effect is like looking at foot tracks on a beach. Close by, the steps appear to be wandering vividly this way or that, but if you peer at them into the distance they appear to straighten into a line. Yet if you were to go to the distant spot, you'd notice the path was just as jagged. Call our misperceptions of time series on which xkcd relies for his joke statistical foreshortening. This is an enormous and almost always unrecognized problem in judging uncertainty."


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
24-09-2016 01:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But on the other hand, if we do increase in temperature by only a few degrees:

24-09-2016 05:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21582)
jwoodward48 wrote:


Oh, shit.

Also, it seems it was warmer 1000 years ago than it was now. The warning of "but evolution won't be able to keep up" doesn't make much sense.


We don't know.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-09-2016 05:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21582)
jwoodward48 wrote:


aaaaaaaaaaa


Again, we don't know. We have never been able to calculate a global temperature.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-09-2016 06:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes, but if one still believed that the data could show anything, these graphs would be difficult to deal with.
24-09-2016 11:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21582)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, but if one still believed that the data could show anything, these graphs would be difficult to deal with.


Since that is the idea, that point does indeed depend on illiteracy. Unfortunately, since most of the public is not aware of the need to validate data and the methods for doing so, and in not knowing how statistics work, many are led astray.

Unfortunately, this idea works all too often.

It really is impractical to make everyone expert enough in statistics to see the problem.

The media are particularly bad at it. They are out to sell the news. Fantastic exciting stores are what sells. It's like the professional gossip system. Gossip has always been terribly destructive.

You will come across people like this. Gossiping lets them feel important, and they often don't understand the damage they do.

It is a difficult situation.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 24-09-2016 11:42
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Climate change, how it is viewed through social media:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Layers of the Atmosphere as Viewed in Blue2227-01-2024 23:16
None Of You Know The Real Intend, Purpose Of Climate Change Issue On The Media704-12-2023 04:02
Biden is starting WW3 by sending 3000 troops to Poland/Belarus border and no American media cares1117-08-2023 20:14
Trump appointed federal Judge Limits Federal Government's Contact with Social Media Companies306-07-2023 18:11
How America Got Divorced from Reality: Christian Utopias, Anti-Elitism, Media Circus - Kurt Andersen2014-04-2022 19:02
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact