Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The Planetary Society)   April 1: Bill Nye convinces Congress that Climate Change and evolution are realities. Not April 1: Bill Nye the Science Guy convinces Congress to restore funding for planetary exploration. Hero trumps cool   (planetary.org) divider line 57
    More: Hero, Timeline of Solar System exploration, evolution, U.S. Congress, climate change, Planetary Society, union dues, Planetary Science, NASA  
•       •       •

3288 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Apr 2013 at 9:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-04 03:40:57 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: omeganuepsilon: Real science doesn't need to adjust and filter and discard data in such ways.

You have a problem with a heck of a lot of science, and statistics, and (as I pointed out in an earlier thread) - pretty much any mathematical operation as they all lose information. Again, I urge you abandon your increasingly irrational Jihad against averages.

You keep re-quoting that as if you actually think you have a valid point.

You're over looking the structure of the statement, likely on purpose, but still.

I am not arguing against science or statistics, but how they're applied here.


And as I (and KiltedBastich) have been pointing out how they're applied here is no different from anywhere else, rendering you at odds, again, with much of science and statistics. You may not be doing so on purpose, but the general way in which you've approached your mistrust of averages does not make any sort of distinction.


omeganuepsilon: Given your fark handle, I still have to wonder if you're some kind of role playing troll.  I know it's neither here nor there, but it's still just a tad eerie. Almost like you knew exactly what you joined fark to do, prophetic in a sense, to be a dirty hippy.


[csb]
As a side bit of information, I chose my Fark handle because as a part of that generation, I associate with much of the underlying motivation and philosophy, but I really didn't like (and continue to dislike) much of the trappings and New Age pseudoscience -  I meant my handle to reflect said tension. I took that motivation and interest in ecology and instead became a research scientist.
[/csb]


omeganuepsilon: At any rate, you have your fiction that you believe in, and I have my fiction that I direly wish was real, but that I can admit is not:

Go hug a tree  cattle-guard on an already fast moving train.  Just stand in the tracks and embrace it as it gets to you.


I wryly note that this attitude of yours ('It's all fiction, man!') reflects some of the negative aspects of the hippie generation more than anything I have espoused.

Do not presume that since you rely on fiction, that others must as well. Some of us tend to value evidence in regards to forming one's opinions, even if you do not.
 
2013-04-04 03:45:31 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: If you somehow don't believe that different variables (climate change and seasonality) working simultaneously to affect one resulting variable (sea ice extent) are notconfounded variables, please provide some sort of reasoning, as you've failed to do so here.


Whoops - double negative. That makes more sense if you get rid of that "not".
 
2013-04-04 04:12:09 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: And as I (and KiltedBastich) have been pointing out how they're applied here is no different from anywhere else, except legitimate science, rendering you at odds, again, with our false claims.


Damnhippyfreak: I associate with much of the underlying motivation, such as, like, Stop murdering the earth...man.


Like I said man, own it.  Kirk Cameron embraces "science" too, you might like him, you've got a LOT in common.
 
2013-04-04 10:56:30 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Point?

A confounding variable. What of it? Did you even read the page? That's an accusation I may toss out there as food for thought.
A perceived relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable that has been misestimated due to the failure to account for a confounding factor is termed a spurious relationship, and the presence of misestimation for this reason is termed omitted-variable bias.

Sounds rather exactly like something I may say.

Yes, outliers are removed, as they are not "data". A sensor that reads 500 degrees is broken. 90 degrees in January in south dakota? Yeah, not happening either.

But some of the organizations go above and beyond that, and is evident when you really read their methodology reports, they're quite blatant about it. Berkeley has attempted to not do it so harshly(read: obviously), but they still do so. They all dampen their references for the floating average, for example, and attempt to extrapolate (read: guess) at missing data. sure, some guesses are more reasonable than others, but none are certain by any means, so that only adds another error to propagate.


Except that they are not any of these things when their methodology is examined by people who actually understand the math, unlike idiot denialist shills like yourself. That's why every serious investigation of the methods has vindicated climate scientists, and why derpsters like yourself keep moving the goalposts.

omeganuepsilon: And that link was relevant how?

You're going to have to explain that one, because, in your very limited context, you may as well have said "math".


Given that your problems seems to be a complete inability to understand math, you are actually correct here. Hey, broken clocks and all that.

Here's an explicit point for you: Climate scientists did not invent the statistical techniques they apply. They are applying standard statistical methodologies developed by mathematicians who have nothing to do with climate science to isolate the effects of particular variables in complex chaotic systems with multiple confounds and occasional large outliers that can heavily skew small subsets of the data. They are using exactly the same techniques that anyone else would use for these research topics.

And yet moron derpsters like yourself fail to grasp the larger mathematical context and narrowly focus down on particular cherry picked data points that fall victim to exactly the problems these statistical techniques were developed to eliminate, and then tell yourselves that you've found some kind of ultimate argument against climate change.

www.lowbird.com

Sheesh, you're so willfully ignorant I'm surprised you don't slip completely into solipsism. Oh wait...

omeganuepsilon: I think you all share some mental condition. I brought up a possibility in that thread:

Is extreme stupidity(and hence a lot of religiosity) possibly some type of anosognosia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia


I guess maybe you have. This is just the height of irony driven by lack of self-awareness. You've gone meta. You're so caught up in your echo chamber you're unaware that you're caught up in your echo chamber and believe other people are mentally ill for believing you to be caught up in your echo chamber and you believe they are unaware of it!

Truly, if it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-04-04 01:02:10 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: And as I (and KiltedBastich) have been pointing out how they're applied here is no different from anywhere else, except legitimate science, rendering you at odds, again, with our false claims.

Damnhippyfreak: I associate with much of the underlying motivation, such as, like, Stop murdering the earth...man.

Like I said man, own it.  Kirk Cameron embraces "science" too, you might like him, you've got a LOT in common.



Creationists are also known for ignoring argumentation and arguing irrationally, including fabricating quotes and misquoting people, as you've done here. If you wish to attempt to argue the points I've put forward in a rational manner, you're more than welcome to do so.
 
2013-04-04 04:28:42 PM  

KiltedBastich: omeganuepsilon: I think you all share some mental condition. I brought up a possibility in that thread:

Is extreme stupidity(and hence a lot of religiosity) possibly some type of anosognosia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia

I guess maybe you have. This is just the height of irony driven by lack of self-awareness. You've gone meta. You're so caught up in your echo chamber you're unaware that you're caught up in your echo chamber and believe other people are mentally ill for believing you to be caught up in your echo chamber and you believe they are unaware of it!

Truly, if it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.


Ah, "I'm rubber you're glue"

How utterly predictable, and lame.
 
2013-04-04 05:20:13 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Ah, "I'm rubber you're glue"

How utterly predictable, and lame.


Uh huh. We presented chapter and verse evidence of why you are factually incorrect (again), and then not only do you again fail to understand the errors in your argument, you accuse of us having a mental illness that relates to inability to recognize personal errors, which is literally the behaviour you are engaging in.

I point out the meta-error you are making, and you respond by claiming I'm the one using a rubber-and-glue argument. You just keep ratcheting up that willful blindness.

When all the available experts tell you you are wrong, when multiple independent sources tell you you are wrong, when the math itself tells you you are wrong, that doesn't mean there is some vast conspiracy of mentally ill people trying to hide the truth.

It means you are wrong.

You really need to get over yourself. You do not know better than every climate scientist and statistician out there whether or not their methodology is valid. You do not have the chops to make actual methodological critiques of their work. You do not get to second-guess the entire peer-review system of an entire discipline. You quote blogs and misrepresented graphs, and then get indignant and complain that you are being ganged up on when everyone points out you are wrong. Well, man up, Nancy. Take your lumps and get used to the fact that what you want to be true is not true. Learn to deal with that disappointment and get on with dealing with reality as it is, rather than how you want it to be. Until you do, we are going to continue mocking you for your abject willful ignorance.
 
Displayed 7 of 57 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report