Faux News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]9/10 for best beans alt goes to KC_Hokie.coolbeans90

I will ravage you.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It does not show that, and their projections, for the most part, follow an appropriate trend line.

I have been trolled so brutally that I won't be able to walk for a week.

coolbeans90

Only for 1990. The rest were more constant in their slope and were consequently below and above the actual - with the midline, as posted earlier a la slow_poke, being somewhat reliable.

[QUOTE="Slow_Show"]

[QUOTE="DavesAlt"]KC is effective. Which I guess is commendable.DavesAlt

I don't know about effective. Entertaining (in a trashy reality TV sort of way), sure, but I don't think anyone is actually gettting worked up over his trolling.

It's a conspiracy!

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The fact is they're wrong. The IPCC gives human emissions too much influence in their models.KC_Hokie

The fact is that the trendlines are reasonably correct, and human emissions need to be, in a manner which does not cripple economic prosperity, scaled back.

The trend has accelerated in recent years, essentially since the industrial revolution allowed us technologies which had the side effect of emitting gases which cause a greenhouse effect, in fairly sharp long-term correlation with greenhouse gas emissions. Granted, correlation != causation, which requires some analysis of scientific phenomena in something like a lab setting, which we do not get from the graphs.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]lol...trend line. Doesn't change the fact every projection predicted MORE warming than actually happened. KC_Hokie

Only for 1990. The rest were more constant in their slope and were consequently below and above the actual - with the midline, as posted earlier a la slow_poke, being somewhat reliable.

They only predicted noticeably "more" on average once, in 1990 - the earliest one. I think that some revisions were done to the model since then, based upon increased accuracy of trendlines.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The fact is that the trendlines are reasonably correct, and human emissions need to be, in a manner which does not cripple economic prosperity, scaled back.

coolbeans90

The trend has accelerated in recent years, essentially since the industrial revolution allowed us technologies which had the side effect of emitting gases which cause a greenhouse effect, in fairly sharp long-term correlation with greenhouse gas emissions. Granted, correlation != causation, which requires some analysis of scientific phenomena in something like a lab setting, which we do not get from the graphs.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]OK but the earth has been on that trend for 10,000 years (since the end of the last ice age). That doesn't prove humans are driving it. Plus, human emissions have far less influence then previously thought. KC_Hokie

The trend has accelerated in recent years, essentially since the industrial revolution allowed us technologies which had the side effect of emitting gases which cause a greenhouse effect, in fairly sharp long-term correlation with greenhouse gas emissions. Granted, correlation != causation, which requires some analysis of scientific phenomena in something like a lab setting, which we do not get from the graphs.

You, yourself, have posted graphs in the past that directly contradict that statement of yours. The slope is not the same.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The trend has accelerated in recent years, essentially since the industrial revolution allowed us technologies which had the side effect of emitting gases which cause a greenhouse effect, in fairly sharp long-term correlation with greenhouse gas emissions. Granted, correlation != causation, which requires some analysis of scientific phenomena in something like a lab setting, which we do not get from the graphs.

coolbeans90

You, yourself, have posted graphs in the past that directly contradict that statement of yours. The slope is not the same.

You know what's great? There's only ever like one person on this entire board who ever even bothers opposing ACC and he can't read graphs. OT actually has a quasi-political topic that it isn't extremely split on!Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]You know what's great? There's only ever like one person on this entire board who ever even bothers opposing ACC and he can't read graphs. OT actually has a quasi-political topic that it isn't extremely split on!KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]You know what's great? There's only ever like one person on this entire board who ever even bothers opposing ACC and he can't read graphs. OT actually has a quasi-political topic that it isn't extremely split on!Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I really don't care if I'm one of the few who is willing to point out the IPCC's projections have all been wrong and predicted more warming due to human than actually happened.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] The conclusion you draw however is flawed. According to your own logic that means everything you've ever thought is incorrect.Ace6301

Therefore, their hypothesis needs revision. I don't think that's a radical observation. That's what you do in science....when your hypothesis gives too much weight to one factor you need to revise that hypothesis.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Not it hasn't. If you plot the 20th century temperatures then give the slope of the average it's the same as it's been for 10,000 years.

KC_Hokie

You, yourself, have posted graphs in the past that directly contradict that statement of yours. The slope is not the same.

Admittedly, there is more temperature variance than I anticiped. That said, towards the end of your graph, there is a sudden, very dramatic, positive increase in the slope of temperature change (which reminds me - I miss calculus). Concurrent with said timing occurred the industrial revolution. During that time, humanity grew dramatically, as did what it could do to its surroundings. The emission of greenhouse gases - gases which have been shown to absorb radiation - has increased quite considerably. The tight correlation between the emission of greenhouse gases and temperatures in tandem with the knowledge of the properties of greenhouse gases makes a very compelling case for anthropogenic climate change. Attempts to model said change have been made, and the trendlines are reasonably accurate and most of the did not particularly overstate the rise in temperature. Take that as you will. I highly doubt that much else will come of this discussion. Part of me fears that I have once again fallen for an argument where I have deliberately argued with someone not being serious.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]You know what's great? There's only ever like one person on this entire board who ever even bothers opposing ACC and he can't read graphs. OT actually has a quasi-political topic that it isn't extremely split on!KC_Hokie

Little more, if any, in most of the trendlines.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I really don't care if I'm one of the few who is willing to point out the IPCC's projections have all been wrong and predicted more warming due to human than actually happened.KC_Hokie

IF the models are wrong - but most of them were close, then the amount that emissions affect climate to the extent that they do is what is at stake - not the hypothesis that human emissions do not control climate change.

I am done with this thread.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]It means their current hypothesis is wrong. Human emissions don't control the climate. It's far more complex than that. Therefore, the hypothesis needs revision. KC_Hokie

Therefore, their hypothesis needs revision. I don't think that's a radical observation. That's what you do in science....when your hypothesis gives too much weight to one factor you need to revise that hypothesis.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

You, yourself, have posted graphs in the past that directly contradict that statement of yours. The slope is not the same.

coolbeans90

Admittedly, there is more temperature variance than I anticiped. That said, towards the end of your graph, there is a sudden, very dramatic, positive increase in the slope of temperature change (which reminds me - I miss calculus). Concurrent with said timing occurred the industrial revolution. During that time, humanity grew dramatically, as did what it could do to its surroundings. The emission of greenhouse gases - gases which have been shown to absorb radiation - has increased quite considerably. The tight correlation between the emission of greenhouse gases and temperatures in tandem with the knowledge of the properties of greenhouse gases makes a very compelling case for anthropogenic climate change. Attempts to model said change have been made, and the trendlines are reasonably accurate and most of the did not particularly overstate the rise in temperature. Take that as you will. I highly doubt that much else will come of this discussion. Part of me fears that I have once again fallen for an argument where I have deliberately argued with someone not being serious.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Yes I know what you think. You thinking it does not however prevent your conclusion from being incorrect.Ace6301

Therefore, their hypothesis needs revision. I don't think that's a radical observation. That's what you do in science....when your hypothesis gives too much weight to one factor you need to revise that hypothesis.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The 'experts' tell us X amount of human emissions will cause Y amount of warming. And their projections have been proven false.

Therefore, their hypothesis needs revision. I don't think that's a radical observation. That's what you do in science....when your hypothesis gives too much weight to one factor you need to revise that hypothesis.

KC_Hokie

Doesn't surprise me at all.

Conservatism is anti science.

I don't think human drive the climate. Is there SOME effect due to humans....sure probably but it's tiny. KC_Hokie

Hmm who to trust, the worlds scientific community or a politically motivated consiracist on gamespot. What a dilemma.

Reading this thread is like watching 2 monkeys trying to have sex with the same cupcake.DaBrainz

frosting everywhere and one pokes an eye out with the cherry stem