|
Farmers Almanac more accurate than climate science
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-02-21 00:47:28
How the hell did earth ever have multiple ice ages before mankind to cause them, must of been those damn dinosaurs, they got what they deserved for wreaking the planet while not listening to the credited scientists.
I don't know, personally.
How about I just pretend to know. Must be the dinosaurs.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-21 06:51:36
That's actually a misleading statement. That 97.1% articles who endorse anthropogentic global warming were out of 32.6% of articles about climate change. Meaning that the majority of studies out there don't know what's causing it.
That's neither "the current consensus" or "nearly everyone."
Maybe if you actually read the article instead of skimming it for once....especially if you are the one defending it.
But seriously, keep spouting that you know more about climate change than the rest of the science community and that it is all man-made. Also keep believing that money played no factor in these "findings" of your 97.1% of studies...
Because we all know scientists are not human and therefor not tainted by human emotions, especially greed.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-02-21 09:43:31
That's actually a misleading statement. That 97.1% articles who endorse anthropogentic global warming were out of 32.6% of articles about climate change. Meaning that the majority of studies out there don't know what's causing it.
That's not what it said.
Quote: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
32.6+0.7+0.3 = 33.6%
33.6% (4,013) of papers expressed a position on AGW, and 97.1% (3,897) of that endorsed that humans are causing global warming.
The majority of papers out there that mentioned 'global climate change' or 'global warming' are not discussing who or what caused global warming. They are papers researching dating methods, comng up with new models, re-running hypothesis, etc.
You know, empirical studies.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-21 09:50:09
That's actually a misleading statement. That 97.1% articles who endorse anthropogentic global warming were out of 32.6% of articles about climate change. Meaning that the majority of studies out there don't know what's causing it.
That's not what it said.
Quote: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
32.6+0.7+0.3 = 33.6%
33.6% (4,013) of papers expressed a position on AGW, and 97.1% (3,897) of that endorsed that humans are causing global warming.
The majority of papers out there that mentioned 'global climate change' or 'global warming' are not discussing who or what caused global warming. They are papers researching dating methods, comng up with new models, re-running hypothesis, etc.
You know, empircal studies. So basically you are saying that studies that express no opinions towards your agenda as to why something is or is not happening should be discounted when it comes to your agenda.
The article states that 66.4% did not express an opinion on AGW. You even bolded that! Ever thought to wonder why the did not express an opinion on your agenda? Maybe because the studies are performed without a bias, such as your agenda.
You know, empir ical studies.
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2014-02-21 09:59:40
If you disregard everything that doesn't support the belief in global warming you will find 100% consensus, and you are so close to doing that already by misquoting this study @97.1%.
They post a study that completely dismantles their belief that a majority of scientists believe in global warming.
[+]
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-02-21 10:03:40
So basically you are saying that studies that express no opinions towards your agenda as to why something is or is not happening should be discounted when it comes to your agenda.
The article states that 66.4% did not express an opinion on AGW. You even bolded that! Ever thought to wonder why the did not express an opinion on your agenda? Maybe because the studies are performed without a bias, such as your agenda.
You know, empirical studies. Why are you such a contentious idiot?
If one publishes a study on the effect of the present trend of decreasing weeks of winter on foliage growth in the Rocky Mountains, there is no need to examine whether or not anthropogenic climate change is causative. That article essentially did a massive search of all articles related to climate change and excluded the ones that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
You can't be this *** moronic. You really cannot. Yet to defend your HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE position, you will say anything so long as you don't have to back it up with substance. You're seriously arguing that there is some political agenda involved in a meta-study because they excluded irrelevant data. The agenda would only be there if irrelevant data was included the way you want it. Hypocrite.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 10:04:31
But listen to the consensus now, they're super serious and bound to get it right sooner or later.
I'm sure their inaccuracies and alarmism have nothing to do with the gobs of government money that funds the industry.
The earth's climate is simply not fragile enough to be shaken to catastrophe by the human utilization of CO2.
[+]
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-02-21 10:09:50
This isn't exactly difficult. There are four categories. Endorse, no opinion, reject, uncertain.
Somehow, some of you people assume that 'no opinion' means the same as 'uncertain'.
The study clearly says that among people who make a claim upon AGW, 97.1% endorse it, 1.9% reject it and 1.0% are uncertain.
Listen, you don't know better than climate scientist on the topic of the climate because you watch fox news and see a bunch of graphs.
Again, too stupid to realize they've bought into propaganda.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-02-21 10:11:05
So basically you are saying that studies that express no opinions towards your agenda as to why something is or is not happening should be discounted when it comes to your agenda.
What the hell are you talking about?
Quote: The article states that 66.4% did not express an opinion on AGW. You even bolded that! Ever thought to wonder why the did not express an opinion on your agenda? Maybe because the studies are performed without a bias, such as your agenda.
You know, empirical studies.
Because...shockingly that wasn't the point of the papers.
They looked at abstracts that contained these 2 phrases 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. Maybe, I know this might be difficult for you to understand, but just maybe the focus of those papers was not about who caused AGW....since they expressed no opinion on that freaking question.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 10:13:31
Climate scientists clearly have no clue as to what they're talking about either. Their predictions have consistently been wrong.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-21 10:18:42
If one publishes a study on the effect of the present trend of decreasing weeks of winter on foliage growth in the Rocky Mountains, there is no need to examine whether or not anthropogenic climate change is causative. In your example, it studies a trend and comes to a conclusion (which is what the study is for, otherwise it would be just a bunch of data and no human thought put into it). If man-made climate change isn't considered to be a cause of their findings, then either A) the "scientists" are incompetent in their research or B) the "scientists" are incompetent in their conclusions.
So, unless you are calling the 66.4% of the studies involving climate changes that has no opinion on man-made climate change to be incompetent (because they didn't take your agenda into consideration), then you are ignoring the fact that man-made climate change is just a small populous idea that is funded by those who want to say that "humans are at fault at climate change in the world until we change to your ways".
But instead, you rather be another mouthpiece who thinks they know more than a scientist when it comes to understanding how things work in the world.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-21 10:20:30
Because...shockingly that wasn't the point of the papers. Exactly. Those that focused on global warming were paid by special interest groups to say that man is killing the earth. You know, presenting a biased report without actually studying into the "why" or "how"
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-02-21 10:22:47
Climate scientists clearly have no clue as to what they're talking about either. Their predictions have consistently been wrong.
Well it's nice that you've come out and said it.
Examples like that are why it's not completely unfounded to say the right wing at anti-science.
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-02-21 10:24:21
Because...shockingly that wasn't the point of the papers. Exactly. Those that focused on global warming were paid by special interest groups to say that man is killing the earth. You know, presenting a biased report without actually studying into the "why" or "how"
Can we have some evidence for this? How much are they making for these reports and how much would they have made if it weren't for AGW claims?
[+]
Ragnarok.Sekundes
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4189
By Ragnarok.Sekundes 2014-02-21 10:33:11
The opposite could very well be true and it would make even more sense from my point of view. Industries polluting have much more to gain out of biased reports than the people "trying to save earth"
This. Running a green business is expensive. If they could pollute as much as they want and it didn't cause a problem then they could save a huge amount of money by continuing to dump all that waste right in to our barrier reef.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-02-21 10:44:23
But instead, you rather be another mouthpiece who thinks they know more than a scientist when it comes to understanding how things work in the world. The level of complete lack of self-awareness is unfathomable.
Why do you cling so ferociously to being stupid? I mean that very literally. You reject almost any kind of data, even the stuff that can be used to support your ill-defined and often arbitrary opinions. It's like you live in your own balloon of paranoid madness and imagine that anyone saying anything to you must be a vicious attack to be retorted with flailing and gibbering. I swear that reading any argument you (and several other people I could name) post in this forum is the perfect glimpse into the mind of a paranoid schizophrenic.
It's not even worth debating with you. I swear I see hints of intelligence, if only in that you construct sentences clearly and largely free of error, but you say things that are so outrageously unsupportable...
Someone recently suggested you're playing the role of the bottom-of-the-barrel far-right idiot with a middle-school education in order to undermine any kind of conservative ideology and I really think it must be true. I spend a lot of time around people with room temperature IQs regurgitating the hate speech that passes for far-right politics and you mirror them word-for-word except, and this is the important part, these idiots couldn't parse a sentence to save their lives. There's literally no way you can be what you claim to be.
Valefor.Sehachan
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2014-02-21 10:46:24
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-02-21 10:47:21
It's funnier in centigrade!
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-21 10:47:42
If one publishes a study on the effect of the present trend of decreasing weeks of winter on foliage growth in the Rocky Mountains, there is no need to examine whether or not anthropogenic climate change is causative. In your example, it studies a trend and comes to a conclusion (which is what the study is for, otherwise it would be just a bunch of data and no human thought put into it). If man-made climate change isn't considered to be a cause of their findings, then either A) the "scientists" are incompetent in their research or B) the "scientists" are incompetent in their conclusions. No, it means neither. Whether or not climate change is driven by humans (anthropogenic climate change/anthropogenic global warming) is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to a good majority of climate studies, BECAUSE THEY AREN'T CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT CAUSED THE CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT ONLY WHAT THE CHANGE AFFECTS.
So, unless you are calling the 66.4% of the studies involving climate changes that has no opinion on man-made climate change to be incompetent (because they didn't take your agenda into consideration), then you are ignoring the fact that man-made climate change is just a small populous idea that is funded by those who want to say that "humans are at fault at climate change in the world until we change to your ways". Of the studies that tried to investigate whether or not climate change was anthropogenic (caused by humans), the VAST MAJORITY concluded that it was anthropogenic.
This isn't a conspiracy. It isn't a small populous idea, it is a near-overwhelming majority of those doing research in the field. As for funding, a large portion is tax-funded research, from multiple nations, across the globe.
Nausi, I'd like a source for the graph; in order to read more about that.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-21 11:01:33
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-21 11:07:58
Because...shockingly that wasn't the point of the papers. Exactly. Those that focused on global warming were paid by special interest groups to say that man is killing the earth. You know, presenting a biased report without actually studying into the "why" or "how"
Can we have some evidence for this? How much are they making for these reports and how much would they have made if it weren't for AGW claims? Human Nature. Or are you going to say Corporate Greed doesn't exist.
The opposite could very well be true and it would make even more sense from my point of view. Industries polluting have much more to gain out of biased reports than the people "trying to save earth" Yes! Finally somebody gets it!
It isn't that any of these studies should be ignored, it is that you should understand that everything, and I mean everything has an agenda and bias. People shouldn't put their faith in said studies as that they are the gospel truth of the world and understand that different viewpoints exist and are not "irrational tripe" or "lunatic."
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-21 11:08:22
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-21 11:09:58
I spend a lot of time around people with room temperature IQs Can't help it that you are who you keep company with.
So, did you inadvertently insulted yourself?
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-21 11:12:22
So the image is from a WSJ article, where two people are responding to a speech by Kerry saying people that don't believe in ACC/AGW are dumb; their response states that the amount of change or the cause isn't under debate, but simply that models have tended to be alarmist with regards to projections.
In other words, they don't argue that it exists, but are questioning the accuracy of future predictions. Which is fair, for what it is worth; I'm currently downloading the document they reference in their graph (warning, ~30MB) to see if I can find the data they are using.
As a note, this describes mid-trophospheric temperatures; reading more into that, it also appears that there is increasing deviations between mid-trophospheric temperature (as measured by satellite) versus ground station.
From Wikipedia
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-02-21 11:19:57
Putting the climate change debate aside... Does anyone really think it's the wisest idea to do things that increase the level of pollution and do nothing to decrease the amount of pollution we put out?
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-02-21 11:20:44
Exactly. Those that focused on global warming were paid by special interest groups to say that man is killing the earth. You know, presenting a biased report without actually studying into the "why" or "how"
Step-by-step.
1. 9 people decide to do a meta-analysis of abstracts
2. They searched databases from 1991–2011 using topic searches for:
a.) "global warming"
b.) "global climate change"
3. They then reduced some of the papers due to lack of abstract or lack of peer review
4. Total climate abstracts analyzed: 11,944
5. No-position on AGW: 66.4%
Endorse AGW: 32.6%
Reject AGW: 0.7%
Uncertain: 0.3%
6. Then they calculated the abstracts expressing an opinion (33.6%) on AGW
7. Out of those abstracts they found that 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Those papers that professed no-position in their abstract:
Quote: Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists "...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"
As to your conspiracy theory...my head is still spinning trying to figure out where you pulled that crap from. As it has absolutely nothing to do with what this paper was about, let alone remotely centered in reality.
Siren.Mosin
By Siren.Mosin 2014-02-21 11:23:02
Does anyone really think it's the wisest idea to do things that increase the level of pollution and do nothing to decrease the amount of pollution we put out?
Idunno!
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-21 11:44:08
Because...shockingly that wasn't the point of the papers. Exactly. Those that focused on global warming were paid by special interest groups to say that man is killing the earth. You know, presenting a biased report without actually studying into the "why" or "how"
Can we have some evidence for this? How much are they making for these reports and how much would they have made if it weren't for AGW claims? Human Nature. Or are you going to say Corporate Greed doesn't exist.
The opposite could very well be true and it would make even more sense from my point of view. Industries polluting have much more to gain out of biased reports than the people "trying to save earth" Yes! Finally somebody gets it!
It isn't that any of these studies should be ignored, it is that you should understand that everything, and I mean everything has an agenda and bias. Which is why you have peer review, and provide data and methodology in your empirical studies. Peer review isn't to establish the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the claim, but whether the claim is justifiable given the methodology and data. And while it isn't sexy to have a result that says "inconclusive", that itself is pretty damn helpful, because it shows you that the technique used wasn't sufficient to actually draw a conclusion from.
And then you do meta-analysis across large numbers of studies, in order to correct/catch/analyze the trends of the studies themselves.
It is one of the reasons why proper peer review is such a goddamn important thing. And why it is useful to perform studies/experiments to recreate findings.
People shouldn't put their faith in said studies as that they are the gospel truth of the world and understand that different viewpoints exist and are not "irrational tripe" or "lunatic."
Different viewpoints exist that are not irrational tripe or lunatic. However, there are different viewpoints that exist that ARE "irrational tripe" or "lunatic", given the knowledge at the time. For example, that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth.
The fact that temperatures are increasing is not under debate. The current working theory is that the warming is cause due to increased greenhouse gases, due to human activity. The data is fitting the models to a sufficient degree of predictive accuracy.
It isn't sufficient to simply cry "This isn't the cause" without ACTUALLY PROPOSING ANOTHER MECHANISM. Yes, by all means, point out the problems; this leads to improving the models/hypothesis/tests. Keep doing studies.
But to simply sit and state "This isn't the cause" does nothing.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-02-21 11:48:30
It isn't sufficient to simply cry "This isn't the cause" without ACTUALLY PROPOSING ANOTHER MECHANISM. Yes, by all means, point out the problems; this leads to improving the models/hypothesis/tests. Keep doing studies. On that note, wasn't there some noise a couple years back that correlated solar activity with climate change? I can't say I have any idea how one can predict what the Sun was doing back in 500 CE, but I do recall things like low sun spot activity during the Little Ice Age and a recent spike in the same.
This exceptionally cold and snowy winter has shown that government climate scientists were dead wrong when it came to predicting just how cold this winter would be, while the 197-year old Farmers’ Almanac predicted this winter would be “bitterly cold”.
Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted temperatures would be “above normal from November through January across much of the lower 48 states.”
This, however, was dead wrong. As Bloomberg notes, the CPC underestimated the “mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.”
CPC grades its prediction accuracy on a Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfect accuracy) to -50 (no better than playing pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded).
CPC’s score for October’s weather predictions for November through January was -22 and the September weather prediction for October through December was at -23.
“Not one of our better forecasts,” Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center’s acting director, told Bloomberg Businessweek.
What actually happened this winter? A “polar vortex” swept down and caused every state except Florida to experience snowfall and brought about 4,406 record low temperatures across the U.S. in January along with 1,073 record snowfalls.
The most recent winter storm that slammed into the eastern U.S. last week knocked out power for more than 1 million people in the Southeast and caused 21 deaths along the East Coast. More than 2,500 flights were delayed last Friday and 1,500 were canceled from East Coast airports.
Who could have predicted such a harsh winter? The Farmers Almanac did, according to a CBS News report from August 2013. The nearly 200-year old publication hit newsstands last summer and predicted that “a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey,” and also predicted “a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.”
“We’re using a very strong four-letter word to describe this winter, which is C-O-L-D. It’s going to be very cold,” Sandi Duncan, the almanac’s managing editor, told CBS News in August.
While there was thankfully no snow on Super Bowl Sunday, those sad Broncos fans trying to get back home from New Jersey had some trouble as snow started falling the day after the most important football game of the year.
The Midwest and Great Lakes regions also saw terribly cold weather and record levels of snowfall this winter. Major Midwest cities like Chicago, Cincinnati and Detroit have seen record levels of snowfall. Chicago alone saw 45.8 inches of snow by the end of January, and, as of Friday, the Great Lakes were 90 percent frozen over.
The Midwest and New England were hit with frigid weather and snow for long periods of time. So long, in fact, that there were propane shortages and natural gas prices spiked due to increased need for heating and supply bottlenecks.
The Farmers’ Almanac makes predictions based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles — a prediction system that has remained largely unchanged since its first publication in 1818. While modern scientists don’t put much stock in the almanac’s way of doing things, the book says it’s accurate about 80 percent of the time.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/#ixzz2tu9uyfOX
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/#ixzz2tu9uyfOX="1" href="This">Libtards are gonna cry over this one
|
|