If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Nature Network)   Yeah, there's a lot of things about climate change that suck. But at least it makes the waves in Australia totally gnarly to surf   (mnn.com) divider line 55
    More: Spiffy, Australians, climate change, Kyoto University, Southern Ocean, fishing industry  
•       •       •

3012 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2013 at 8:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-21 02:23:54 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: . . . a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading.
Indeed. As, for instance, when one looks at only 150 years of data when a large 1600-year cycle is in progress. I have already explained this to you many times. And, after all, it is YOUR logic and YOUR complaint -- but only when it applies to others. You are being dishonest, after being informed of you error. This is made worse by the fact that you castigate anyone who disagrees with you if they do the same thing -- like you are doing here.

[i46.tinypic.com image 850x584]
If one follows the curve, one sees that the temperatures should be rising at about the rate they HAVE been, over the term of fifty to a hundred years. When the full context, rather than a short segment of a cycle, is viewed, it is clear that exactly the warming we are seeing is what is expected from past cycles.



While you have made the above argument many times before, I have also solidly refuted it many times before, with you tending to ignore the arguments I put forth or trying to change the subject. Let's see if you continue this pattern.

Keep in mind three important things:

First, and most importantly, the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on some sort of simplistic (not-even) regression like what you're trying to do here. It's somewhat more complicated then just eyeballing a line on a graph and assuming it will continue (like what you're trying to do) without any idea about the multiple mechanisms or processes simultaneously at work. Eyeballing a graph and guessing the future is a very poor way of model-building, hm?

Second, your so-called "cycle" isn't really all that different from what has already been found:

www.skepticalscience.com

Your choosing to plot Loehle's reconstruction in isolation gives you the impression that it says something radically different from other reconstructions. This is false. Your choosing to not include the instrumental record gives you the impression that current warming is in line with historical changes portrayed by Loehle's reconstruction. This is also false.

Third, as a general explanation since I don't think you're doing this here, a long term period (relative to processes we're interested in) can also be misleading. In general it's about signal vs noise - you can focus your scale at one at which longer-term noise dominates and swamps out the signal you're interested in just as easily as you can do so with short-term noise. That longer-term processes exist does not mean that shorter-term ones do not, just as shorter-term processes exit does not mean that longer-term ones do not. For example, the graph you posted would discount the contribution of say, ENSO due to the latter's short time scale relative to the one portrayed. You have to understand why it's potentially misleading to look at a too-short period of time in order to understand why it can be also be said of a too-long period of time.
 
2013-01-23 03:55:37 PM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: As for lying, you really need to be more careful throwing such accusations around considering your recent more-mendacious-than-usual behavior. You still haven't dealt with your lies from the previous (and still-open) thread.
No lies in any open or closed thread. You must be reading your own posts. Careful with that -- that kark will rot your brains, assuming you have any left.

Heh. This itself (in bold) is a lie. The particular lie I'm referring to is documented here, or here or originally here. You're just tacking on even more lies in order to deny it.

In addition, most likely you will ignore this, further proving me right.



Two days without a response is probably enough to lend some validity to this.
 
2013-01-23 06:53:11 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
In addition, most likely you will ignore this, further proving me right.


Two days without a response is probably enough to lend some validity to this.

What's it like being wrong all the time? Your referenced item is NOT a lie. A lie has the intention to deceive, which I clearly did NOT, as I corrected it in the same thread. Looks like you're lying AGAIN.
 
2013-01-23 07:39:14 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: In addition, most likely you will ignore this, further proving me right.


Two days without a response is probably enough to lend some validity to this.
What's it like being wrong all the time? Your referenced item is NOT a lie. A lie has the intention to deceive, which I clearly did NOT, as I corrected it in the same thread. Looks like you're lying AGAIN.



Actually, you are proving me right in that you are ignoring what I posted - as proven by the fact that I specifically addressed the lie in bold in the links I provided. I can reproduce what's in there regarding this particular lie, as you apparently ignored it:

Damnhippyfreak: -Was it not "within that thread". Nope. Here's the "explanation" you gave (that HighZoolander quoted) in one thread, and here's the "deliberate misstatement" in an earlier thread. Contrary to your claim, this was not "within that thread".


That, and of course, you've been repeating the same mistake again and again (with me trying to correct you) over the course of more than two years.

Similarly, said links do prove you did lie. Multiple times as you continue, as you do here, to lie to try to cover it up. This is not a particularly honest nor adult way to deal with this, GeneralJim. We both know you're lying, so consider this: what does this say about your ability to approach this topic rationally if you can't deal with easily-proven facts about even your own posts in an honest manner, never mind the science?
Let's see if you continue to prove me right by ignoring the facts and evidence presented.
 
2013-01-23 08:28:51 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
Similarly, said links do prove you did lie. Multiple times as you continue, as you do here, to lie to try to cover it up.

Let's see... First off, since you are the least honest person on Fark (of which I am aware, I don't read all the categories) I don't think your howling about ANYONE'S honesty, or lack thereof, carries any weight.

And, what I did say, that was not true, is to list the source of a questionnaire as the Oreskes study, when, in fact, the questionnaire was in Scientific American. A horrible, horrible lie, I admit.

And now you claim I did not get a retraction in in the same thread. I won't do any research at your behest, so let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that what you say is true. Then, thus assuming, that is a MISTAKE, as opposed to a lie. But I won't hold your lack of ability to discern the difference against you. That would be like being upset that a person color-blind from birth cannot tell the difference between red and magenta.

And, seriously, do you think that if I were "trying to cover it up" I'd be talking about it so much? That ONE mis-attribution is, indeed, the only time I have said anything I knew to be false on Fark, other than obvious sarcasm such as "Oh, look, more sterling honesty from Hippy..." That kind of stuff is not a lie, either.

And again, for all the good it will do, you would TRULY improve your accuracy if you simply quit pretending that you know what I am thinking. When you state what I am "trying to do" you have been, I believe, wrong EVERY time. You suck at it; find another parlor trick.
 
Displayed 5 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report