Scientists: "Hottest year on record claims are a social crusade!"

[skookerasbil]

“The Obama administration relentlessly politicized science and it aggressively pushed a campaign about that politicized science,” said Steven E. Koonin, who served as under secretary for science in Obama’s Department of Energy from 2009 to 2011."

"NOAA fixed the 2016 increase at 0.04 degrees Celsius. The British Met Office reported an even lower rise, of 0.01C. Both increases are well within the margin of error for such calculations, approximately 0.1 degrees, and therefore are dismissed by many scientists as meaningless."

http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/01/29/scientists_criticize_hottest_year_on_record_claim_as_hype.html



Phony fucks!!


Yet more evidence that the AGW religion = hopelessly duped fools!!! Its not even conjecture anymore.........the curtain has been pulled back and these people have been fully exposed.

 

[mamooth]

I think skook is pointing out how he doesn't understand statistics at all, and doesn't know what Margin of Error means or implies. And that since he's such a dumbass, it means global warming is a hoax.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that is his logic. "I don't understand the subject, therefore everyone else is wrong".

 

[skookerasbil]

I think skook is pointing out how he doesn't understand statistics at all, and doesn't know what Margin of Error means or implies. And that since he's such a dumbass, it means global warming is a hoax.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that is his logic. "I don't understand the subject, therefore everyone else is wrong".

Maybe I am the asshole here........but Paris is going bye-bye s0n!! The EPA is getting whacked upside of the head with a baseball bat. Funding is getting cut off to universities who don't include climate skeptics in their research. Renewable energy will soon to growth rates even lower than the snails pace its been seeing for the past 12 years. Global warming as a voter concern is at the bottom of the list on every poll ( out of 20 "concerns"). Only a 1/3 of the people think global warming is man made

At least Im a winning dumbass!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh.....meanwhile, the climate experts here are claiming the world will soon be under water because the temperature rose last year 0.01 degree's!! Clearly Im the dumbass.

 

[mamooth]

Oh.....meanwhile, the climate experts here are claiming the world will soon be under water because the temperature rose last year 0.01 degree's!! Clearly Im the dumbass.

As nobody said that, it demonstrates that you're not just a dumbass. You're also a liar.

If you disagree, just show where someone said that.

And we get it. You believe that any science which goes against TheParty must be censored. You Stalinists have all come out of your Stalinist closets. Probably not a good idea, being what a minority you are, and the way everyone despises you.

 

[SSDD]

I think skook is pointing out how he doesn't understand statistics at all, and doesn't know what Margin of Error means or implies. And that since he's such a dumbass, it means global warming is a hoax.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that is his logic. "I don't understand the subject, therefore everyone else is wrong".

So hairball...it is your claim that there is no margin of error?...or maybe you don't know what the term means...here, let me help...

margin of error - n - in statistics, a measurement of the accuracy of the results of a survey

That seems to support the statement that the margin of error is 10X the degree of accuracy claimed....if you think it says something else, by all means enlighten us....or at least try and describe the smoke and mirrors you are trying to employ.

 

[polarbear]

I think skook is pointing out how he doesn't understand statistics at all, and doesn't know what Margin of Error means or implies. And that since he's such a dumbass, it means global warming is a hoax.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that is his logic. "I don't understand the subject, therefore everyone else is wrong".

Alright then, since you claim to be the statistics expert here, go ahead and point out what a margin of error more than twice the result means in La La Land.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think skook is pointing out how he doesn't understand statistics at all, and doesn't know what Margin of Error means or implies. And that since he's such a dumbass, it means global warming is a hoax.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that is his logic. "I don't understand the subject, therefore everyone else is wrong".

Alright then, since you claim to be the statistics expert here, go ahead and point out what a margin of error more than twice the result means in La La Land.

.01 vs 0.1.. I believe that would a 10x factor.. Just say'in

 

[polarbear]

I think skook is pointing out how he doesn't understand statistics at all, and doesn't know what Margin of Error means or implies. And that since he's such a dumbass, it means global warming is a hoax.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that is his logic. "I don't understand the subject, therefore everyone else is wrong".

Alright then, since you claim to be the statistics expert here, go ahead and point out what a margin of error more than twice the result means in La La Land.

.01 vs 0.1.. I believe that would a 10x factor.. Just say'in

No mistake, I was trying to be generous when I used the 0.1 over 0.04 instead of the 0.1 over 0.01 factor else he cries "cherry picking" as usual.
No matter, because with any sort of measurements we want to have a Signal to Noise Ratio of 2 as a minimum standard.
But what we have here is a NOISE to signal ratio of 2 or even 10 which is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think skook is pointing out how he doesn't understand statistics at all, and doesn't know what Margin of Error means or implies. And that since he's such a dumbass, it means global warming is a hoax.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that is his logic. "I don't understand the subject, therefore everyone else is wrong".

Alright then, since you claim to be the statistics expert here, go ahead and point out what a margin of error more than twice the result means in La La Land.

.01 vs 0.1.. I believe that would a 10x factor.. Just say'in

No mistake, I was trying to be generous when I used the 0.1 over 0.04 instead of the 0.1 over 0.01 factor else he cries "cherry picking" as usual.
No matter, because with any sort of measurements we want to have a Signal to Noise Ratio of 2 as a minimum standard.
But what we have here is a NOISE to signal ratio of 2 or even 10 which is beyond ridiculous.

The MET office has proclaimed it was just 0.01.. NOAA and GISS want to inflate it to 0.04... IF this is what they have been doing to us for decades, everything they have touched is going to be AFU..

 

[mamooth]

Alright then, since you claim to be the statistics expert here, go ahead and point out what a margin of error more than twice the result means in La La Land.

Let's see ... Gaussian table, half a sigma is 19% ... it means it's 69% likely that the higher measurement is indeed higher, which makes claiming it's meaningless look silly.

Your mistake is claiming that the MoE is bigger than the result. That's statistical retardation. The "result" is the temperature of that year, not the difference in the temperature of the two years.

No matter, because with any sort of measurements we want to have a Signal to Noise Ratio of 2 as a minimum standard.

Facepalm.

Again, SNR is calculated on the measurements, not the difference between two measurements.

 

[ScienceRocks]

2016 was the hottest year on record! Because mr.asshole can't be convinced of this reality doesn't change it.

 

[SSDD]

Alright then, since you claim to be the statistics expert here, go ahead and point out what a margin of error more than twice the result means in La La Land.

Let's see ... Gaussian table, half a sigma is 19% ... it means it's 69% likely that the higher measurement is indeed higher, which makes claiming it's meaningless look silly.

Your mistake is claiming that the MoE is bigger than the result. That's statistical retardation. The "result" is the temperature of that year, not the difference in the temperature of the two years.

No matter, because with any sort of measurements we want to have a Signal to Noise Ratio of 2 as a minimum standard.

Facepalm.

Again, SNR is calculated on the measurements, not the difference between two measurements.

All smoke...all mirrors....are you claiming that there is no margin of error?...and if there is...what is it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

2016 was the hottest year on record! Because mr.asshole can't be convinced of this reality doesn't change it.

The hottest year in 37 years (length of the record used) ignoring the other 4.5 billion years in earths history.. The ignorance is priceless..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Alright then, since you claim to be the statistics expert here, go ahead and point out what a margin of error more than twice the result means in La La Land.

Let's see ... Gaussian table, half a sigma is 19% ... it means it's 69% likely that the higher measurement is indeed higher, which makes claiming it's meaningless look silly.

Your mistake is claiming that the MoE is bigger than the result. That's statistical retardation. The "result" is the temperature of that year, not the difference in the temperature of the two years.

No matter, because with any sort of measurements we want to have a Signal to Noise Ratio of 2 as a minimum standard.

Facepalm.

Again, SNR is calculated on the measurements, not the difference between two measurements.

All smoke...all mirrors....are you claiming that there is no margin of error?...and if there is...what is it?

The instrumentation used has a +/- 0.1 Deg C (error bar of 0.2 deg C). This makes a potential 0.01 degree rise have about a less than 10% CHANCE OF BEING RIGHT.

 

[mamooth]

The instrumentation used has a +/- 0.1 Deg C (error bar of 0.2 deg C). This makes a potential 0.01 degree rise have about a less than 10% CHANCE OF BEING RIGHT.

So, according to your raging dumbassery here, if a politician is ahead in the polls by 0.1 of the MoE, it really means they have only a 10% of being ahead. That is, polling ahead means they're way behind.

Billy, you're laughably stupid at statistics.

If the "polling" result is bigger at all, then no matter what the MoE or margin is, there is at least a 50% probability that it is indeed larger.

 

[SSDD]

The instrumentation used has a +/- 0.1 Deg C (error bar of 0.2 deg C). This makes a potential 0.01 degree rise have about a less than 10% CHANCE OF BEING RIGHT.

So, according to your raging dumbassery here, if a politician is ahead in the polls by 0.1 of the MoE, it really means they have only a 10% of being ahead. That is, polling ahead means they're way behind.

Billy, you're laughably stupid at statistics.

If the "polling" result is bigger at all, then no matter what the MoE or margin is, there is at least a 50% probability that it is indeed larger.

So are you claiming that there is no margin of error, or do you just not know what to say at this point that won't make you look any more stupid than you already do?

 

[mamooth]

So are you claiming that there is no margin of error,

Well, no. If I had wanted to say something that insanely stupid, I would have said it. Thus, I didn't say it.

So why did you say something so insanely stupid?

I'm not going to try to decode whatever aberrant mental processes led you to say something that stupid, as that risks sanity. As Nietzsche sort of said, "When you gaze into the stupid, the stupid gazes back into you."

 

[polarbear]

So are you claiming that there is no margin of error,

Well, no. If I had wanted to say something that insanely stupid, I would have said it. Thus, I didn't say it.

So why did you say something so insanely stupid?

I'm not going to try to decode whatever aberrant mental processes led you to say something that stupid, as that risks sanity. As Nietzsche sort of said, "When you gaze into the stupid, the stupid gazes back into you."

What you did say was even more stupid than your first reply:
Let's see ... Gaussian table, half a sigma is 19%
And:
Your mistake is claiming that the MoE is bigger than the result. That's statistical retardation. The "result" is the temperature of that year, not the difference in the temperature of the two years.
What "2 years" are you talking about?
The claim was that 2016 was by either .04 or .01 deg the highest since 1880.
This was then debunked by a theoretical physicist who pointed out that the margin of error for that data set was 0.1 degrees.....which means that the RESULT they published was dwarfed by the margin of error by at least 2 times if not by 10 times.
Only a statistical retard (like you) would claim that the the word "result" or if you insist on a different word such as "increase" was the temperature and not the increase of this sensational statement.
Most humorous was your usual squall of buzzwords which is the hallmark of pseudo academic usurps, in your case a so called "ex navy nuclear engineer":
Let's see ... Gaussian table, half a sigma
In stats "sigma" stands for the standard deviation. How do you get from a margin of error of .1 deg to "half a sigma of 19%"
You don`t even have a clue how a simple standard deviation is calculated...but somehow you concocted it to % without even having a data set to begin with...just 2 numbers, the increase and a disproportionately higher margin of error.

 

[mamooth]

The claim was that 2016 was by either .04 or .01 deg the highest since 1880.

This was then debunked by a theoretical physicist

A guy with no experience in climate science, who displays a poor understanding of statistics.

who pointed out that the margin of error for that data set was 0.1 degrees

That doesn't debunk the previous statement in any way. It's still .04C over the 2015 record.

.....which means that the RESULT they published was dwarfed by the margin of error by at least 2 times if not by 10 times.

Which still in no way debunks the fact that 2016 was .04C over 2015.

Only a statistical retard (like you) would claim that the the word "result" or if you insist on a different word such as "increase" was the temperature and not the increase of this sensational statement.

The results are what they are. You not liking reality won't change reality.

Most humorous was your usual squall of buzzwords

Gaussian and sigma are buzzwords? Curious. I thought they were statistical terms.

which is the hallmark of pseudo academic usurps, in your case a so called "ex navy nuclear engineer":

You just broke our agreement by calling me a fraud again. That is, your broke your word. You clearly can't be trusted.

In stats "sigma" stands for the standard deviation. How do you get from a margin of error of .1 deg to "half a sigma of 19%"
You don`t even have a clue how a simple standard deviation is calculated...

I didn't have to calculate it. Someone else already did.

You're just not very good at this.