Originally posted by @wildgrassYou are making a poor comparison. People who send in the poll questions are more likely to feel strongly about their opinions. Those that don't are likely to be nearly undecided. Over two thirds of those sent the poll didn't fill them out. Some may have thought the poll was stupid because it asked the more than 100% AGW and I could not blame them. The trend has been warming for over 300 years. Only a fool would take that seriously.
I've seen CNN call senate races after they count 1% of the vote (especially if one candidates winning by a 2/3 majority).
Is it even conceivable that, with 30% polling, that 65% number could be flipped. It would have be an exceedingly minute possibility.
I used the football brain donation for study comparison because people do not donate brains for study unless they think something might be wrong. That is why the brains have a high brain damage rate that have been studied.
People who don't think there is a AGW problem are less likely to send in the opinion poll. This is not at all like a vote poll. Most of those are by phone or in person leaving the voting polls. Poor comparison.
Originally posted by @wildgrassWe have been over this before. The graph shows big differences in the predicted temps and the results. You can see that perfectly well for yourself. Last time you implied the graph was a fake or something like that. Then I said "fine, show me the real results if you are so sure they are false" and you did nothing of sort.
Countless times you've been unable to articulate why or how Dr. Roy Spencer is defining a "Wrong" climate model. I think it's remarkable that the models in the graph predicted the exact temperature of the planet 15 years into the future. Did you even read that article? What is he talking about?
If you're waiting for a bus, and it's 45 seconds late, is ...[text shortened]... efine something as wrong or junk, what degree of predictive accuracy would be right or not junk?
Your claim that the results are close to the predictions is obviously a ridiculous assertion. I think this is just a case of your reluctance to admit the obvious. Don't you feel silly and dishonest for it????
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainThis is not a ridiculous claim. You're asking a computer program built in 1983 using 1983 data to predict temperature in 2026. What is a reasonable margin of error? Did Dr. Spencer even look at margins of error? I've looked at that graph 10 times and even read his paper. It doesn't say anything about what reasonable accuracy would look like (i.e. a null hypothesis). What does an accurate climate model look like according to Dr. Spencer?
Your claim that the results are close to the predictions is obviously a ridiculous assertion. I think this is just a case of your reluctance to admit the obvious. Don't you feel silly and dishonest for it????
"It shows big differences" doesn't explain what the data means, which is what I've been asking you to clarify. For most of the observed time course, the models track the temperature very accurately. The "big differences" I see only appear 30 years in the future where empirical data hasn't been collected yet. So.... big difference in what? What is he talking about? Don't you feel silly using his conclusions as the foundation of your "models are wrong" assertion without even knowing the answers to these questions?
My assertion from the beginning was that the models are reasonably accurate to make predictions and conduct experiments that establish climate forcing variables. This is a true statement, and Dr. Spencer's data does not even address this. His article makes him sound like a sensationalist nut job, claiming that if we take steps to mitigate human causes we would ostensibly "freeze and starve poor people to death." Should I take that seriously?
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassAnd alternately, if he is totally wrong and the world goes to pot in less than a century, how many MORE people, rich and poor alike will die from the effects of super hurricanes, perhaps volcanism, rising sea levels and such that can happen with some models?
This is not a ridiculous claim. You're asking a computer program built in 1983 using 1983 data to predict temperature in 2026. What is a reasonable margin of error? Did Dr. Spencer even look at margins of error? I've looked at that graph 10 times and even read his paper. It doesn't say anything about what reasonable accuracy would look like (i.e. a null h ...[text shortened]... uses we would ostensibly "freeze and starve poor people to death." Should I take that seriously?
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainThis thread claims that a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming does not exist, yet we now have looked at two different scientific polls that clearly demonstrate this consensus is real.
You are making a poor comparison. People who send in the poll questions are more likely to feel strongly about their opinions. Those that don't are likely to be nearly undecided. Over two thirds of those sent the poll didn't fill them out. Some may have thought the poll was stupid because it asked the more than 100% AGW and I could not blame them. The t ...[text shortened]... a vote poll. Most of those are by phone or in person leaving the voting polls. Poor comparison.
How are you going to establish that "Those that don't are likely to be nearly undecided." vs. in the field/ on sabbatical / really busy?
22 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseAnd worse case scenario if he's somehow right, we move forward with strategically implementing more sustainable and efficient clean energy solutions. How terrible!
And alternately, if he is totally wrong and the world goes to pot in less than a century, how many MORE people, rich and poor alike will die from the effects of super hurricanes, perhaps volcanism, rising sea levels and such that can happen with some models?
Instead of starving poor people to pay for it, the proposals instead call for lifting/shifting ag and oil subsidies and not spending $1 trillion on a pointless war.
23 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassThat sounds like a nice, neat package, wrapped smartly topped with a bow.
And worse case scenario if he's somehow right, we move forward with strategically implementing more sustainable and efficient clean energy solutions. How terrible!
Instead of starving poor people to pay for it, the proposals instead call for lifting/shifting ag and oil subsidies and not spending $1 trillion on a pointless war.
Stop spending money on war, start spending it on protecting the earth.
Better idea: stop spending.
That's 'problems solved, y'all go home now, k?' for the entire world.
Denounce consumerism for the blight it has caused and watch the world realize: their 'leaders' have been leading them to death from the moment of birth.
23 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrasshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/09/the-wrongest-media-predictions-about-donald-trump/
I've seen CNN call senate races after they count 1% of the vote (especially if one candidates winning by a 2/3 majority).
Is it even conceivable that, with 30% polling, that 65% number could be flipped. It would have be an exceedingly minute possibility.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/political-prediction-market-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html
Yeah...
Remember how CNN boldly raised Clinton's chance of a slam dunk from 78% to 91%?
Surveys are a crap source of information, unless you're trying to persuade someone... which means you're less than objective in the first place.
23 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhThat's a terrible idea. It would mean no effective government or state police so total anarchy + many more poor people will inevitably starve to death + screws humanity's future.
Better idea: stop spending.
24 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassYou cherry picked only one of the 3 I posted.
This is not a ridiculous claim. You're asking a computer program built in 1983 using 1983 data to predict temperature in 2026. What is a reasonable margin of error? Did Dr. Spencer even look at margins of error? I've looked at that graph 10 times and even read his paper. It doesn't say anything about what reasonable accuracy would look like (i.e. a null h ...[text shortened]... uses we would ostensibly "freeze and starve poor people to death." Should I take that seriously?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/7/climate-change-models-wrong-predicting-rain-drough/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/
BTW, what would be reasonable accuracy in your opinion? This seems to be important to define if we are to continue.
24 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassYour statement is clearly false. Look at my OP and you will see I set the criteria at "the main cause of AGW", not merely a cause.
This thread claims that a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming does not exist, yet we now have looked at two different scientific polls that clearly demonstrate this consensus is real.
How are you going to establish that "Those that don't are likely to be nearly undecided." vs. in the field/ on sabbatical / really busy?
Stop lying!
25 Sep 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainWhich one do you want to discuss? You still haven't answered any of my questions. Why does Dr. Spencer think that action on climate change will kill poor people?
You cherry picked only one of the 3 I posted.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/7/climate-change-models-wrong-predicting-rain-drough/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/
BTW, what would be reasonable accuracy in your opinion? This seems to be important to define if we are to continue.
"Reasonable accuracy" is statistically insignificant deviation between predictions and observations.
25 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainUmmm. We're still talking about the same thing, the polling data that you posted earlier right? The data you posted clearly showed that the consensus myth you were talking about is not a myth. It's real. What are you referring to by saying "merely a cause"? Who brought that up?
Your statement is clearly false. Look at my OP and you will see I set the criteria at "the main cause of AGW", not merely a cause.
Stop lying!
25 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassYo, homey.
Ummm. We're still talking about the same thing, the polling data that you posted earlier right? The data you posted clearly showed that the consensus myth you were talking about is not a myth. It's real. What are you referring to by saying "merely a cause"? Who brought that up?
The gig is up.
The data has been cooked and your side lost.
Oddly enough, it really doesn't matter which of the sides "won," since in the end, we all lose as a result.
It's always been about the argument, and they have always been about giving a side to root for, to cheer for, to fight for, to die for, to kill for.
We lost as soon as we started arguing.