Reply With Quote
You ever going to link the study that you pulled the graph from? This may come as s surprise to you but no one other than WC takes you at your word here. So you can circle jerk with him or justify a single thing you say.
So we now know very well that you do not understand what relative to average means. I broke it down so everyone else could understand what I am saying. They all clearly understand what relative to average means.
You look like a ing re now. You have an engineering degree and you cannot figure out simple .
Give us more charts and youtubes. Continue to make a mockery of yourself.
You ever going to link the study that you pulled the graph from? This may come as s surprise to you but no one other than WC takes you at your word here. So you can circle jerk with him or justify a single thing you say.
Loud noises
Berkeley
Earth
Surface
Temperature
If you weren't so busy having tantrums, you'd notice the answers to several of your questions were easily gleaned from info on the graphs.
Just to point out further how disingenuous you are. Here are three studies submitted for review done at Berkley over the past month. They all look at particular subsets and if you look inside of any of them they all have arbitrarily labeled graphs too.
http://berkeleyearth.org/resources.php
What is the context of that graph? You don't know do you?
So we can safely assume since Darrin bailed that he does not know the context of the graph. Mindlessly reposting blogs and emails is fun i guess.
Nah, he was just done posting from work.
Thats why I posted it at 5.
What do you mean by the "context" of the graph?
Dumb noises. its not hard to figure out.
HERE is an example study from BEST. It is looking at the SUBSET of variations within LAND surface tempurates. If you look in the link you will see similarly arbitrary labeled axes with the idea that if you know the study you have the appropriate CONTEXT of wht you are looking at.
If for example the data from the graphs was pulled from this study then it would obviously indicate that only about 25% of the Earth's surface is being discussed.
We have no context. We just have you giving vague directions as to where the data came from because you got your information from a mailer and lack critical thinking skills.
Where is the data from the graph from? Do I need to put it plainer so your dumb ass can figure it out?
Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague
However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.
So you get the same mailer. Now that we have clearly established that the source of the graph was not in fact from BEST that serves to underscore the need to determine what BEST study, news release, data set etc that the graph was actually taken from.
So the second graph was not actually from BEST. Darrin is either stupid or a liar. The mailer clearly indicates that the information from the second graph was 'compiled' by The Global Warming Policy Foundation and not BEST.
http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases.html
That is a link to the The Global Warming Policy Foundation's press release page. Here are a few gems to show the extent of their 'objectivity.'
Global Warming Policy Foundation Calls On Government To Suspend Unilateral Climate Targets
Top Economist Warns Green Jobs 'Creation' Will Undermine Recovery
Former Cabinet Secretary Questions Blind Faith In Climate Alarmism
New Report: Shale Gas Shock Challenges Climate and Energy Policies
Did UK Government Keep Cold Winter Warning Secret In Run-Up To UN Climate Conference?
Now this is why I am such an asshole to Darrin. Darrin lied to us and told us his chart was from BEST. It wasn't but instead from an obvious fossil fuel industry interest group. He either knew or should have known and then acts glib. At least WC attempts to be honest.
Darrin you are s .
Reading is hard. Bottom of graph clearly states "Graph drawn using BEST's own data...". As for the other point you thought you made about "context", do you know what the "S" in BEST stands for?
SURFACE, you stupid mother er.
Aww, your mad. Look dumb .
The real source was an energy industry interest group named the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...colleague.html
Do you even know what BEST does? They take the aggregate data from other agencies. Its not like they are compiling raw data. They weight factors differently etc. From BEST's website:
So what numbers did the think tank pull? What study? What was the context you sophist piece of ?
On a final note, the S = surface assertion was exceedingly stupid. What other category other than land is the surface of the Earth covered in? I cited their study on LAND data. Think about it , it might come to you though i doubt it.
You are a ing moron and not worthy of any further replies. Good bye.
Thats unfortunate because I was going to ask you why you did not link the mailer. BEST did not make that chart. We know that now despite your attempts to hide the actual source. Go ahead and off you sophist piece of .
Thesaurus time, or is that your new favorite word? LOL
From my understanding, a sophist is a derivative of Sophocles who was a contemporary of Plato's and a head of a group of teachers/lawyers from Athens at that time.
In fairness they were compe ors of Socrates and Plato and a grain of salt does need to be taken when they are analyzed historically.
Plato basically said that they argued with no concern for the truth.
From dictionary.com
soph·ist·ry
[sof-uh-stree]
noun, plural -ries.
1.a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2.a false argument; sophism.
Oh, I know what it means and its etymology, its just that I'll bet that it has been used on this board over the last week (by you) more than it has been used the rest of the time spurstalk has been in existence. Not attacking you, that was the source of my "thesaurus time" comment.
eh, just an observation.
He's so dumb, he'll probably post the definition (after he looks it up).
Edit>. See what I mean?
It has a very important meaning to me. I love to argue --obviously-- but I argue with the idea that it will lead to the revealing of the truth for the betterment of all.
To me there is nothing worse for finding the truth than those that intentionally mislead. I term them sophists perhaps for lack of a better word. Sorry if I overuse it but to me it gets directly to the core of my contempt.
Darrin clearly can not be trusted.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
