America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 years ago by gryphonms. 39 replies replies.
Oopsie...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
jpotts Offline
#1 Posted: Thu, Sep 19 2013, 8:47 AM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
...looks like there is trouble in Climate Change fantasy land.

http://news.yahoo.com/warming-lull-haunts-authors-key-climate-report-121638103.html

Warming lull haunts authors of key climate report

STOCKHOLM (AP) — Scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.

Leaked documents obtained by The Associated Press show there are deep concerns among governments over how to address the issue ahead of next week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Climate skeptics have used the lull in surface warming since 1998 to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are cooking the planet by burning fossil fuels and cutting down CO2-absorbing forests.

The IPCC report is expected to affirm the human link with greater certainty than ever, but the panel is under pressure to also address the recent lower rate of warming, which scientists say is likely due to heat going deep into the ocean and natural climate fluctuations.

"I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying, 'Look the IPCC is silent on this issue,'" said Alden Meyer, of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists.

In a leaked June draft of the report's summary from policy-makers, the IPCC said the rate of warming in 1998-2012 was about half the average rate since 1951. It cited natural variability in the climate system, as well as cooling effects from volcanic eruptions and a downward phase in solar activity.



But the takeaway quote is this:

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The minute you put this "warming trend that isn't a warming trend" in context over decades or centuries, it almost immediately stops becoming a "warming trend."

Oh, and all of a sudden someone in the fringe, junk-science contingent that is pushing "Climate Change" is now concerned that maybe a couple of decades of accurate reporting of temperatures is somehow out of context with actual historical record...

I'm sure Victor will be along soon to claim that this is anti-science, and that the Bible claims that the world is flat (which has nothing to do with the subject, but when your religious dogma is attacked, you have to defend with something no mater how wackobird it is).
victor809 Offline
#2 Posted: Thu, Sep 19 2013, 4:13 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Potts, I see you're eagerly trying to draw me into some sort of argument.

But I stopped bothering to discuss anything interesting with you back when you proved an inability to understand basic 8th grade level math. If you are so stubborn as to refuse to budge when you're on the wrong side of a math problem the most basic student could understand, then why would I even bother to try to discuss something more complicated with you? You clearly are unwilling or unable to shift position when a text book says you're wrong, why would I waste my time?

I'll be willing to argue with you again when you re-do the math problem, and point out the specific error you made, to prove you actually understand the mathematical concept at hand.
borndead1 Offline
#3 Posted: Thu, Sep 19 2013, 4:41 PM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
victor809 wrote:
Potts, I see you're eagerly trying to draw me into some sort of argument.

But I stopped bothering to discuss anything interesting with you back when you proved an inability to understand basic 8th grade level math. If you are so stubborn as to refuse to budge when you're on the wrong side of a math problem the most basic student could understand, then why would I even bother to try to discuss something more complicated with you? You clearly are unwilling or unable to shift position when a text book says you're wrong, why would I waste my time?

I'll be willing to argue with you again when you re-do the math problem, and point out the specific error you made, to prove you actually understand the mathematical concept at hand.



I'm lost. Please link to the original conversation while I make some popcorn. Thanks.
Abrignac Offline
#4 Posted: Thu, Sep 19 2013, 5:14 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,354
borndead1 wrote:
I'm lost. Please link to the original conversation while I make some popcorn. Thanks.



Who cares. I'm hungry. Pass the bowl.
HockeyDad Offline
#5 Posted: Thu, Sep 19 2013, 10:30 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
What is 8th grade math now? Three digit subtraction?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Sep 20 2013, 6:19 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
HockeyDad wrote:
What is 8th grade math now? Three digit subtraction?




Grand Theft Auto IIwhip
DrafterX Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Sep 20 2013, 8:20 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
gazzintas I think.... Think
borndead1 Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Sep 20 2013, 12:26 PM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
DrafterX wrote:
gazzintas I think.... Think



My 8th grade math teacher had some big gazzintas.
Lou Sanis Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Sep 20 2013, 12:33 PM EST
Joined: 09-05-2013
Posts: 219
borndead1 wrote:
My 8th grade math teacher had some big gazzintas.




Did you cup them in your hands while you sucked his bazzenga?
jpotts Offline
#10 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2013, 7:24 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
victor809 wrote:
Potts, I see you're eagerly trying to draw me into some sort of argument.

But I stopped bothering to discuss anything interesting with you back when you proved an inability to understand basic 8th grade level math. If you are so stubborn as to refuse to budge when you're on the wrong side of a math problem the most basic student could understand, then why would I even bother to try to discuss something more complicated with you? You clearly are unwilling or unable to shift position when a text book says you're wrong, why would I waste my time?

I'll be willing to argue with you again when you re-do the math problem, and point out the specific error you made, to prove you actually understand the mathematical concept at hand.



Victor, Victor, Victor...


...you still don't want to admit that education is not tiered, but cumulative across the population. That comes from years of worshiping at the altar of PhDs because they can do no wrong in your eyes.

That isn't eight-grade math. That's you having a Bieberesque crush on your supposed intellectual "superiors"...
jpotts Offline
#11 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2013, 7:25 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
borndead1 wrote:
I'm lost. Please link to the original conversation while I make some popcorn. Thanks.



It would be unwise to do so. It contains posts by a certain individual whose name is better left in the past.
DrafterX Offline
#12 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2013, 7:32 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
poor CROS.... Sad
victor809 Offline
#13 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2013, 7:47 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
http://cigarbid.com/Forum/c/posts/68818/Bad-news-for-the-left-good-news-for-America-

Here you go potts. review your errors, return with a full report on why you were wrong and the correct mathematical answer. then we can talk.
JadeRose Offline
#14 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2013, 10:30 PM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
Leave pottsie alone, victor. It's like kicking a puppy or beating up a retarded kid.
victor809 Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2013, 3:12 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Hey, he keeps trying to drag me into his arguments. And I just can't allow an inability to understand math stand.
JadeRose Offline
#16 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 12:07 PM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
He didn't study his gizinta's.
bloody spaniard Offline
#17 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 1:18 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
victor809 wrote:
Hey, he keeps trying to drag me into his arguments. And I just can't allow an inability to understand math stand.

Can you give ONE definitive example of jpott's flawed (2+2=5) mathematical skills? I'm curious.
victor809 Offline
#18 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 1:46 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
bloody spaniard wrote:
Can you give ONE definitive example of jpott's flawed (2+2=5) mathematical skills? I'm curious.


The link I posted above is where I first learned of his inability to understand math.
bloody spaniard Offline
#19 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 2:19 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Think Ok, let me try aksing it like this...
What SPECIFIC post was the straw that finally broke your camel's back & convinced you that his math skills were off?

Was it his interpretive assessment of cumulative stats which is debateable (IMO) or was it ... ahhhhh, never mind.
Got too much work to do.
DrafterX Offline
#20 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 2:21 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
I heard Potts was claiming to have 8" but Victor discovered he only had 3".... Mellow
bloody spaniard Offline
#21 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 2:38 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
DrafterX wrote:
I heard Potts was claiming to have 8" but Victor discovered he only had 3".... Mellow


Where's TW, er, Lous to settle this? I heard he keeps the spreadsheet.
tailgater Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 3:03 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
bloody spaniard wrote:
Where's TW, er, Lous to settle this? I heard he keeps the spreadsheet.


I think the term is "Spread Cheek"...
bloody spaniard Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 4:06 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
tailgater wrote:
I think the term is "Spread Cheek"...

Applause
victor809 Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 5:15 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
bloody spaniard wrote:
Think Ok, let me try aksing it like this...
What SPECIFIC post was the straw that finally broke your camel's back & convinced you that his math skills were off?

Was it his interpretive assessment of cumulative stats which is debateable (IMO) or was it ... ahhhhh, never mind.
Got too much work to do.


At least by post 244 I realized he was either riding the short bus, or intentionally refusing to understand the basic math.

I'm a little disappointed in myself for not realizing earlier that he simply didn't understand it.
Abrignac Offline
#25 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 5:58 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,354
victor809 wrote:
At least by post 244 I realized he was either riding the short bus, or intentionally refusing to understand the basic math.

I'm a little disappointed in myself for not realizing earlier that he simply didn't understand it.



The prelude began around post 129 IIRC. Never made it to #244. Perhaps when I pull the needles out of my eyes I'll endeavor to persevere.
victor809 Offline
#26 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 6:53 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
The prelude began around post 129 IIRC. Never made it to #244. Perhaps when I pull the needles out of my eyes I'll endeavor to persevere.


In all fairness, it looked to be acceptable up through about 150 or so... somewhere around there he stopped understanding the point of an average, or the reason people use weighted averages.
Abrignac Offline
#27 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 6:56 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,354
victor809 wrote:
In all fairness, it looked to be acceptable up through about 150 or so... somewhere around there he stopped understanding the point of an average, or the reason people use weighted averages.



In all fairness, there was nothing fair about reading that mess. Talk about instant migraine.
wheelrite Offline
#28 Posted: Thu, Sep 26 2013, 7:48 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Abrignac wrote:
In all fairness, there was nothing fair about reading that mess. Talk about instant migraine.


yes,,,,,
HockeyDad Offline
#29 Posted: Fri, Sep 27 2013, 6:38 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
victor809 wrote:
In all fairness, it looked to be acceptable up through about 150 or so... somewhere around there he stopped understanding the point of an average, or the reason people use weighted averages.



Weighted averages are to rig the stats when you don't like just the regular average, right? Kinda like mean versus median.
Gene363 Offline
#30 Posted: Fri, Sep 27 2013, 7:54 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,862
HockeyDad wrote:
Weighted averages are to rig the stats when you don't like just the regular average, right? Kinda like mean versus median.



Don't forget asymmetric scales. Whistle Whistle Whistle

Lies, dammed lies and statistics.
Buckwheat Offline
#31 Posted: Fri, Sep 27 2013, 8:36 AM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
The bottom line is that we need less politics in science and more science in politics. fog

Gene363 Offline
#32 Posted: Fri, Sep 27 2013, 10:18 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,862
Buckwheat wrote:
The bottom line is that we need less politics in science and more science in politics. fog



True, until a scientist looks for grant money.
DrafterX Offline
#33 Posted: Fri, Sep 27 2013, 10:25 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
Sounds like the UN dismissed the reports claiming global warming doesn't exist... that would take away way too much money... Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#34 Posted: Fri, Sep 27 2013, 10:23 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,541
DrafterX wrote:
Sounds like the UN dismissed the reports claiming global warming doesn't exist... that would take away way too much money... Mellow




Applause Applause Applause
DrafterX Offline
#35 Posted: Sat, Sep 28 2013, 12:11 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,576
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4zR9r9olOg

Mellow
victor809 Offline
#36 Posted: Tue, Jan 21 2014, 3:45 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
http://news.yahoo.com/noaa-world-2013-4th-hottest-record-174925839.html
daveincincy Offline
#37 Posted: Tue, Jan 21 2014, 5:14 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
victor809 wrote:
Hey, he keeps trying to drag me into his arguments. And I just can't allow an inability to understand math stand.


I'm not seeing the part of his OP that specifically called you out and dragged you into his argument.

HockeyDad wrote:
Weighted averages are to rig the stats when you don't like just the regular average, right? Kinda like mean versus median.



...kinda like changing the formula used to calculate the unemployment rate. Liar
victor809 Offline
#38 Posted: Tue, Jan 21 2014, 5:33 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
dave wrote:

I'm not seeing the part of his OP that specifically called you out and dragged you into his argument.


jpotts wrote:


I'm sure Victor will be along soon to claim that this is anti-science, and that the Bible claims that the world is flat (which has nothing to do with the subject, but when your religious dogma is attacked, you have to defend with something no mater how wackobird it is).


....?
I know, it's at the end of one of his many long winded, poorly structured posts. It's easy to miss.
gryphonms Offline
#39 Posted: Tue, Jan 21 2014, 5:51 PM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
In 1988 the Montreal protocol was signed and went into effect. To date this has lowered CFC emissions by 90%.

To me this is a logical reason why global warming has also seen a decrease.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top