Climate Statistics 101: see the Slide Show AOC Tried, and Failed, to Censor

[Sunsettommy]

Oh boy what a nice basic takedown of a long running dishonest global warming propaganda based narrative!

Watts Up With That?

Climate Statistics 101: see the Slide Show AOC Tried, and Failed, to Censor

Excerpt:

This is the slide show and 20-minute talk that Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Chellie Pingree tried to censor at the LibertyCon 2020 conference in Washington, D.C. After Dr. Rossiter gave a climate talk at LibertyCon 2019, they wrote to sponsors of the event, such as Google and Facebook, and asked them not to fund any event with an appearance by “climate deniers” from the CO2 Coalition. See http://co2coalition.org/2019/01/30/representatives-ocasio-cortez-and-pingree-and-climate-change-debate/

LibertyCon indeed lost some sponsorship, but because of its commitment to the free exchange of ideas still invited Dr. Rossiter back to speak in 2020. This is the talk he had prepared, before the coronavirus crisis forced the cancellation of the conference.

As background to this topic, we suggest that you watch the CO2 Coalition’s “CO2-Minute” video, “Carbon Dioxide: Part of a Greener Future,” at https://co2coalition.org/studies-resources/video-and-media/.

Now, on to the talk! (You can also download and distribute the slides themselves in a PowerPoint file at: http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/LibertyCon-Rossiter-Presentation-final_6-16-20.pptx)

LINK

=====

There is a good reason WHY they wanted to censor a good presentation, it completely destroys their warmist/alarmist propaganda so effectively.

 

[mamooth]

Why don't you present the high points in your own words? You know, instead of acting like a propaganda parrot, act like someone who understands and is willing to debate the issues.

You won't, of course. You'll just do what you always do, which is scream "NOBODY HAS SPENT HOURS REFUTING MY ALREADY DEBUNKED GISH GALLUP LINK POINT-BY-POINT YET ANOTHER TIME, SO I WIN!!!".

I got news for you, gomer. Nobody is obligated to even look at your source. You're obligated to present the info yourself. If you won't, you haven't made any argument, so there's no need to refute it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Why don't you present the high points in your own words? You know, instead of acting like a propaganda parrot, act like someone who understands and is willing to debate the issues.

You won't, of course. You'll just do what you always do, which is scream "NOBODY HAS SPENT HOURS REFUTING MY ALREADY DEBUNKED GISH GALLUP LINK POINT-BY-POINT YET ANOTHER TIME, SO I WIN!!!".

I got news for you, gomer. Nobody is obligated to even look at your source. You're obligated to present the info yourself. If you won't, you haven't made any argument, so there's no need to refute it.

Your reply makes clear you didn't look in the link, since the entire article is a ...... SLIDE presentation.

Since you didn't offer any counterpoints to the article, you preferred to scream like a child instead. it remains unchallenged.

You are so bad at this.

 

[mamooth]

Your reply makes clear you didn't look in the link, since the entire article is a ...... SLIDE presentation.

Dumbass, I just told you I wouldn't read it.

And you didn't read it either. You never look at your own propaganda. That's why you're incapable of talking about it intelligently. If you won't read your own material, why should anyone else?

If you want a response, summarize the high points yourself, and present them in your own words. That will demonstrate that you looked at your own link and that you understand it. Then we can talk about it. If you won't put in that minimum effort, no one else will do so either.

it remains unchallenged.

Just like the Unibomber Manifesto, because it remains unread.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your reply makes clear you didn't look in the link, since the entire article is a ...... SLIDE presentation.

Dumbass, I just told you I wouldn't read it.

And you didn't read it either. You never look at your own propaganda. That's why you're incapable of talking about it intelligently. If you won't read your own material, why should anyone else?

If you want a response, summarize the high points yourself, and present them in your own words. That will demonstrate that you looked at your own link and that you understand it. Then we can talk about it. If you won't put in that minimum effort, no one else will do so either.

it remains unchallenged.

Just like the Unibomber Manifesto, because it remains unread.

"Your reply makes clear you didn't look in the link, since the entire article is a ...... SLIDE presentation.

Since you didn't offer any counterpoints to the article, you preferred to scream like a child instead. it remains unchallenged.

You are so bad at this."

=====
I did read it, I read every article I post, you warmists/alarmists can't handle this article at all, YOU are on record that you PREFER to be ignorant, by NOT reading it. Good luck with that.....

Lets see if YOU can divine these two charts:

The data are identical for both charts, but only one of them is statistically honest.

Lets see if you can figure it out....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your reply makes clear you didn't look in the link, since the entire article is a ...... SLIDE presentation.

Dumbass, I just told you I wouldn't read it.

And you didn't read it either. You never look at your own propaganda. That's why you're incapable of talking about it intelligently. If you won't read your own material, why should anyone else?

If you want a response, summarize the high points yourself, and present them in your own words. That will demonstrate that you looked at your own link and that you understand it. Then we can talk about it. If you won't put in that minimum effort, no one else will do so either.

it remains unchallenged.

Just like the Unibomber Manifesto, because it remains unread.

"Your reply makes clear you didn't look in the link, since the entire article is a ...... SLIDE presentation.

Since you didn't offer any counterpoints to the article, you preferred to scream like a child instead. it remains unchallenged.

You are so bad at this."

=====
I did read it, I read every article I post, you warmists/alarmists can't handle this article at all, YOU are on record that you PREFER to be ignorant, by NOT reading it. Good luck with that.....

Lets see if YOU can divine these two charts:

View attachment 352478

View attachment 352479

The data are identical for both charts, but only one of them is statistically honest.

Lets see if you can figure it out....

Mamooth buleeeevvves the modern CO2 is all powerful driver of the climate, the economy, the solar system and is the likely culprit behind the FRB pulses from deep space

 

[watchingfromafar]

There is a good reason WHY they wanted to censor a good presentation, it completely destroys their warmist/alarmist propaganda so effectively.

I totally agree with your post and links.

Animal life, including human’s breath in 02 and exhale CO2

Plants breath in CO2 and exhale 02

This is the cycle of life.

What really is a health problem is what diesel engines spew out,

Diesel exhaust is produced by the combustion (burning) of diesel fuel. The exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapours, aerosols, and particulate substances. ... Diesel exhaust may contain: Carbon (soot) Carbon monoxide.
Diesel Exhaust : OSH Answers

Carbon monoxide (CO), an odorless, colorless gas, which can cause sudden illness and death.
-

 

[mamooth]

I did read it,

Nah. You just skimmed it looking for a graph. And you omnly did that after I shamed you into doing it.

Lets see if YOU can divine these two charts:

The first is a distortion of the NOAA temperature record, intended to push a fake claim that the recent warming looks normal.

The second is an attempt at fraud by scale mangling.

Why did you think it would be difficult to spot your fraud? Given how inept you are, your fraud is always very apparent.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Nah. You just skimmed it looking for a graph. And you omnly did that after I shamed you into doing it.



The first is a distortion of the NOAA temperature record, intended to push a fake claim that the recent warming looks normal.

The second is an attempt at fraud by scale mangling.

Why did you think it would be difficult to spot your fraud? Given how inept you are, your fraud is always very apparent.

The first chart is a favorite for warmists/alarmists, they post it many times, their scale in tenths of degrees, which thermometers are NOT capable of being that precise.

From the link you foolishly ignored:

"Slide 9 – Global Mean Surface Temperature
And speaking of temperature, here is an iconic but misleading UN IPCC graph. It shows the average change in temperature at ground stations, along with uncertainty and a long-term trend line, in blue.

There’s a half degree rise from 1910 to 1940, a flat period until 1980, and then another half degree rise to 2010. With CO2 levels barely rising until 1950, and then zooming up since then, that’s a lot of variation that’s not explained by CO2 emissions. Chaos, natural fluctuation, and unknown or hard to quantify cycles are all part of this picture.

What’s so misleading? First, it’s hard to estimate a global or even local average temperature in tenths of a degree. You can see that by the uncertainty, which itself is a guess. Ground temperature stations are problematic, not just in 1880 but today. Second, the data from decades ago are constantly being adjusted with new rules to show more rise."

===

The Second chart is honest because it is by the degree scale, which is close to the thermometers accuracy level.

You missed this too:

"Slide 9A
We really should be looking at global surface temperature today, let alone in 1900, on a scale of degrees rather than tenths, like here. These are the exact same data. Hard to see a trend at all."

boldings mine

======

You are so bad at this, you completely botched on the scaling data and how they are used in a chart, you didn't even notice the ERROR BARS in charts one.....,

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

 

[mamooth]

The first chart is a favorite for warmists/alarmists, they post it many times, their scale in tenths of degrees, which thermometers are NOT capable of being that precise.

But averages are.

So, your point seems to be that you've never taken a basic statistics class, and that you're staggeringly ignorant of how statistics work.

If you're going to try to lie with statistics, you need to learn statistics first. Otherwise you won't be able to lie well and you'll get humiliated, like just happened here.

 

[Sunsettommy]

But averages are.

So, your point seems to be that you've never taken a basic statistics class, and that you're staggeringly ignorant of how statistics work.

If you're going to try to lie with statistics, you need to learn statistics first. Otherwise you won't be able to lie well and you'll get humiliated, like just happened here.

LOL, still no actual counterpoint, which means you are here to blow smoke.

You are a snotty man who isn't fooling anyone about your distinct inability to make on topic coherent counterpoints.

Here is who the man is who made this slide presentation, this what you get when you ignore the article:

"I’m Caleb Rossiter, executive director of the CO2 Coalition of climate scientists, and a former statistics professor. Welcome to Climate Statistics 101, which shows how to test hypotheses about the impact of emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2.

Statistics uses logic and probability to test for causation, for whether one thing affects another. We take nothing on faith, everything on proof. Only in the law school do they teach ad homimen arguments – attacking or praising the messengers. Scholars just analyze their message."

===

Additional information about Dr, Rossiter

"limate statistician Caleb Stewart Rossiter is the executive director of the CO2 Coalition of 50 climate scientists and energy economists. He is also the director of the American Exceptionalism Media Project, an anti-imperialist website.

Dr. Rossiter has worked in Washington's foreign policy and academic arenas since 1981. He was deputy director of the bipartisan congressional Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus and then counselor to the Democratic chair of a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee.

Rossiter earned his Ph.D. in policy analysis from Cornell University and his M.A. in mathematics from American University, where he was a professor in both the School of International Service and the Department of Mathematics and Statistics. He taught courses on Quantitative Analysis, U.S. Policy in Africa, Statistics, and Mathematical Modeling. He was also a statistics professor in South Africa at the University of the Western Cape."

LINK

bolding mine

===

You don't when to quit making complete fools of yourself....., you have yet to address the charts differences, you are a smoke blower.

 

[ReinyDays]

<nitpick> You mean Climate Statistics 301 ... that class is taught in the junior year ... </nitpick>

 

[Sunsettommy]

<nitpick> You mean Climate Statistics 301 ... that class is taught in the junior year ... </nitpick>

That would be unfair to him who already fails climate statistics 101... that class was taught in the Freshman year, a level he never reached.

 

[mamooth]

You are a snotty man who isn't fooling anyone about your distinct inability to make on topic coherent counterpoints.

If you can't address my points, and you never can, just say so. You're not fooling anyone with your constant deflection tantrums.

The point you're running from is your ignorance of basic statistics. You don't understand that the error of an average is less than the error of the individual measurements.

That's the science. I'm discussing it, and you're deflecting.

Here is who the man is who made this slide presentation, this what you get when you ignore the article:

Argument from Authority fallacy. And in this case, your authority pooched it.

You don't when to quit making complete fools of yourself....., you have yet to address the charts differences,

What "differences"? Describe them to us, exactly, in your own words. Provide evidence to back it up, and explain what the "differences" prove. If you understand the subject matter, that should be no problem for you. But if you're just waving your hands around wildly to distract from your ignorance, you will have a problem explaining yourself, so you'll now toss out more insults and evasions.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ha ha ha, you have yet to address my challenge, here it is again:

"The data are identical for both charts, but only one of them is statistically honest.

Lets see if you can figure it out.... "

===

You still haven't figured it out, I even gave you the answers, and still it flies over your head.

That first chart is what warmists/alarmists normally post, yet YOU called it garbage:

"The first is a distortion of the NOAA temperature record, intended to push a fake claim that the recent warming looks normal."

Yet that chart YOU disparaged is from the UN IPCC reports:

"Slide 9 – Global Mean Surface Temperature
And speaking of temperature, here is an iconic but misleading UN IPCC graph."

and,

" What’s so misleading? First, it’s hard to estimate a global or even local average temperature in tenths of a degree. You can see that by the uncertainty, which itself is a guess.

The other chart you say is scale mangling (Not explained at all) yet that chart is honest in compared to the first chart since it goes by the degree, which is similar to the thermometers accuracy range.

"The second is an attempt at fraud by scale mangling."

Here is what it says for that chart:

"Slide 9A
We really should be looking at global surface temperature today, let alone in 1900, on a scale of degrees rather than tenths, like here. These are the exact same data. Hard to see a trend at all."

bolding mine

===

Claiming that thermometers from 1880 to 1980 are accurate to tenths of a degree is a bald faced lie! Yet most science illiterates warmists/alarmists fall for that lie so easily. The IPCC loves science illiterates who support their National Socialism endgame, even when they don't realize it.

You are pathetic.

 

[watchingfromafar]

There is a good reason WHY they wanted to censor a good presentation, it completely destroys their warmist/alarmist propaganda so effectively.

WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE?
In recent decades, the term ‘climate change’ is most often used to describe changes in the Earth’s climate driven primarily by human activity since the pre-Industrial period (c. 1850 onwards), particularly the burning of fossil fuels and removal of forests, resulting in a relatively rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from hovering around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-Industrial time, to 413 ppm as of early 2020. This concentration of carbon dioxide is unprecedented in recorded history. Scientists have reported that we need to return to a ‘safe’ concentration of 350 ppm by 2100 in order to stabilize global warming.

Climate Change

 

[ReinyDays]

WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE?
In recent decades, the term ‘climate change’ is most often used to describe changes in the Earth’s climate driven primarily by human activity since the pre-Industrial period (c. 1850 onwards), particularly the burning of fossil fuels and removal of forests, resulting in a relatively rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from hovering around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-Industrial time, to 413 ppm as of early 2020. This concentration of carbon dioxide is unprecedented in recorded history. Scientists have reported that we need to return to a ‘safe’ concentration of 350 ppm by 2100 in order to stabilize global warming.

Climate Change

Please point to where the extra 150 ppm is unsafe ... any where in the world ...

Just a small note ... we've quadrupled our population in the past 100 years ... maybe that's the cause ... just saying ...

 

[Flash]

There is a good reason WHY they wanted to censor a good presentation, it completely destroys their warmist/alarmist propaganda so effectively.

This silly AGW scam always falls apart with real science.

That is why the Environmental Wackos are always hell bent to be science deniers.

 

[gtopa1]

Dumbass, I just told you I wouldn't read it.

And you didn't read it either. You never look at your own propaganda. That's why you're incapable of talking about it intelligently. If you won't read your own material, why should anyone else?

If you want a response, summarize the high points yourself, and present them in your own words. That will demonstrate that you looked at your own link and that you understand it. Then we can talk about it. If you won't put in that minimum effort, no one else will do so either.



Just like the Unibomber Manifesto, because it remains unread.

"Dumbass, I just told you I wouldn't read it."

Dilligaf!!!!

Greg

 

[ReinyDays]

Just plain common sense destroys the "catastrophic climate change" hoax ... it's never happen before because it's physically impossible ... duh ...