Originally posted by sonhouse Anything that doesn't agree with your particular bias is poo poo'd. why don't you listen to other folks besides the ones you are apologist for?
Challenge my rebuttal with facts instead of embracing your own bias. Can't we just stick to the facts? Is that too hard for you to do? Anybody can cower from the facts when they are not convenient. That is what the intellectually challenged always do.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Challenge my rebuttal with facts instead of embracing your own bias. Can't we just stick to the facts? Is that too hard for you to do? Anybody can cower from the facts when they are not convenient. That is what the intellectually challenged always do.
So you are the only one totally objective and bias free while we of such weak minds Are forever destined for mediocrity.
Originally posted by sonhouse So you are the only one totally objective and bias free while we of such weak minds Are forever destined for mediocrity.
If you cannot successfully challenge the assertions in the link I posted just say so.
Contrary to what you imply I don't think I have a superior mind, just a superior long term memory of things that interest me. That gives me an edge sometimes, but not always.
The Daily Caller is a politically conservative[2][3] news and opinion website based in Washington, D.CThe Daily Caller is a politically conservative[2][3] news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C
The Daily Caller's site visitors to be self-identified political Republicans; of the remaining visitors, independents outnumbered Democrats 26.8 percent to 8.6 percent.[11]
In March 2015 Daily Caller columnist Mickey Kaus quit after editor Tucker Carlson refused to run a column critical of Fox News coverage of the immigration policy debate.[14] Carlson, who also works for Fox, reportedly did not want the Caller publishing criticism of a firm that employed him.[15] Journalist Neil Munro quit two weeks later.[16]
Nature is a prominent interdisciplinary scientific journal. It was first published on 4 November 1869.[1] It was ranked the world's most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports, is ascribed an impact factor of approximately 42.4, and is widely regarded as one of the few remaining academic journals that publishes original research across a wide range of scientific fields.
Originally posted by Metal Brain http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/
To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well
Wow, talk about biased writing.
No, unlike climate denialists, scientists don't begin with the assumption and then attempt to force the evidence into place. From the article in Nature:
Scientists have long known that ships log slightly warmer ocean temperatures than do buoys operating in the same location. The influx of data from an expansion of buoys during the past two decades has reduced the apparent rate of ocean warming. NOAA has now adjusted for this effect, in line with similar changes that the UK Met Office made to its global temperature record.
Thus, it's a known problem that's now been accounted for, and the results happen to support the conclusion that there's been no pause in global warming. Linking to a biased opinion piece can't really change all that.
To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well
Wow, talk about biased writing.
No, unlike climate denialists, scientists don't begin with the assumption and then attempt to force the evidenc ...[text shortened]... been no pause in global warming. Linking to a biased opinion piece can't really change all that.
What you fail to understand is that changing how data is collected does not justify revising past data before those changes were made.
Originally posted by Metal Brain What you fail to understand is that changing how data is collected does not justify revising past data before those changes were made.
What? 🙄
This is how science works. The moment you realise that earlier data is wrong because of X, and you manage to confirm X, that's when you go back to that data and adjust it accordingly. Whatever results you get is what you report, whether or not you liked the implications of the incorrect data. In other words, you follow the evidence where it leads. To not adjust the data at that point is to fail in doing science.
Now, if you wish to challenge the results, you need to challenge X (namely the reasons for adjusting the data), or possibly the adjustment method itself. Anything less will come across as desperate bias and meaningless noise.
This is how science works. The moment you realise that earlier data is wrong because of X, and you manage to confirm X, that's when you go back to that data and adjust it accordingly. Whatever results you get is what you report, whether or not you liked the implications of the incorrect data. In other words, you follow the evidence where it leads. ...[text shortened]... djustment method itself. Anything less will come across as desperate bias and meaningless noise.
Exactly!
I couldn't have explained that better myself.
This is how science works. The moment you realise that earlier data is wrong because of X, and you manage to confirm X, that's when you go back to that data and adjust it accordingly. Whatever results you get is what you report, whether or not you liked the implications of the incorrect data. In other words, you follow the evidence where it leads. ...[text shortened]... djustment method itself. Anything less will come across as desperate bias and meaningless noise.
"The moment you realise that earlier data is wrong because of X, and you manage to confirm X, that's when you go back to that data and adjust it accordingly."
LOL! Now explain why it was wrong in the first place? 🙄
Originally posted by Metal Brain "why it was wrong in the first place?
Totally irrelevant: Whatever was wrong with it, good science demands that we should correct it. Exactly as he said: "To not adjust the data at that point is to fail in doing science". You make no point.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Now explain why it was wrong in the first place?
I don't have to. It's in the article:
Scientists have long known that ships log slightly warmer ocean temperatures than do buoys operating in the same location. The influx of data from an expansion of buoys during the past two decades has reduced the apparent rate of ocean warming.
05 Jun '15 12:11
Climate-change ‘hiatus’ disappears...
Back to Top