global warming biggest scam ever

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where did they say normalization was justified?

Are you making things up again?

I would tell you to look up the definition of the word unduly but you are willfully ignorant so I will hold your hand.

CITE
Translate
Facebook
Share
Twitter
Tweet
Google+
Share

unduly
[uhn-doo-lee, -dyoo-]

Examples
Word Origin

adverb
1.
excessively:
unduly worried.
2.
in an inappropriate, unjustifiable, or improper manner:
unduly critical.

not inappropriate = appropriate.

not unjustified = justified

not improper = proper

Remember telling me to look up the meaning?

[Wild Cobra]

I would tell you to look up the definition of the word unduly but you are willfully ignorant so I will hold your hand.



not inappropriate = appropriate.

not unjustified = justified

not improper = proper

Remember telling me to look up the meaning?

I love how you refuse to properly link the proper material. Is this intentional for lack of good material?

I use Merriam Webster.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unduly

Full Definition of UNDULY

: to an extreme, unreasonable, or unnecessary degree

: in an undue manner : excessively

Not excessively biased means it is somewhat biased.

Not extremely biased means it is somewhat biased.

Not unreasonably biased means it is somewhat biased.

Not unnecessarily biased means it is may or may not be biased.

If it was the intent for BEST to say it was not biased, then why the qualifier "unduly?" This leave a wide open grey area, enough to drive a freight train through depending on perspective. "Unduly" gives no qualifying error range.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Reference dot com

LOL...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I love how you refuse to properly link the proper material. Is this intentional for lack of good material?

I use Merriam Webster.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unduly



Not excessively biased means it is somewhat biased.

Not extremely biased means it is somewhat biased.

Not unreasonably biased means it is somewhat biased.

Not unnecessarily biased means it is may or may not be biased.

If it was the intent for BEST to say it was not biased, then why the qualifier "unduly?" This leave a wide open grey area, enough to drive a freight train through depending on perspective. "Unduly" gives no qualifying error range.

ffs you are an idiot.

Let's examine the word bias shall we:

11 Common Mispronunciations

CITE
Translate
Facebook
Share
Twitter
Tweet
Google+
Share

bias
[bahy-uh s]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned: illegal bias against older job applicants; the magazine’s bias toward art rather than photography;
our strong bias in favor of the idea.
2.
unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group; prejudice:
accusations of racial bias.
3.
an oblique or diagonal line of direction, especially across a woven fabric.
4.
Statistics. a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.

5.
Lawn Bowling.

a slight bulge or greater weight on one side of the ball or bowl.
the curved course made by such a ball when rolled.

6.
Electronics. the application of a steady voltage or current to an active device, as a diode or transistor, to produce a desired mode of operation.
7.
a high-frequency alternating current applied to the recording head of a tape recorder during recording in order to reduce distortion.

So dumbass which one do you think they meant when talking about bias? Could it be a systemic distortion as a result of a sampling procedure?

You don't even know wtf they are talking about when speaking of bias in a statistical assessment. Your dumb ass thinks it means political bias. Now go ahead and waffle and talk of assumptions. It's all you ever do.

[Wild Cobra]

3d:

d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quan y it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias

You need to stop using reference dot com.

It's so comical that you think it's a valid source! No wonder you are clueless!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

3d:

d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quan y it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias

You need to stop using reference dot com.

It's so comical that you think it's a valid source! No wonder you are clueless!

my dictionary is better than yours!

Dictionary.com

With more than 70 million monthly users worldwide, Dictionary.com is the world's leading and most definitive online dictionary. Our dictionary provides reliable access to millions of English definitions, spellings, audio pronunciations, example sentences, and word origins. In addition to our own team of experienced lexicographers, our content is licensed from trusted and established sources including American Heritage and Harper Collins. Dictionary.com’s main source is based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, originally The Century Dictionary, which was published between 1889 and 1891 as one of the most prominent dictionaries in the United States.

Why is it not valid?

We can use your definitions and it doesn't change anything. It is still a statistical adjustment that was not unduly applied.

[Wild Cobra]

my dictionary is better than yours!



Why is it not valid?

We can use your definitions and it doesn't change anything. It is still a statistical adjustment that was not unduly applied.

Wow...

Ignorance has no bounds with you, does it?

Most users is meaningless. That doesn't make it the best. When it leaves out definitions, and limits you to a small handful, it's no better than a pocket dictionary.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow...

Ignorance has no bounds with you, does it?

Most users is meaningless. That doesn't make it the best. When it leaves out definitions, and limits you to a small handful, it's no better than a pocket dictionary.

dumbass doesn't want to discuss statistical bias.

You left out the rest of the quote I put on their too. Why are Harper Collins, American Heritage, and Random House invalid sources? They didn't limit . Only thing limited here is your intellect.

The statistical bias was not undue. deal with it.

[boutons_deux]

as if more AGW evidence would penetrate Repug/right-wingers -for-brains

New evidence of global warming: Remote lakes in Ecuador not immune to climate change


A study of three remote lakes in Ecuador has revealed the vulnerability of tropical high mountain lakes to global climate change -- the first study of its kind to show this. The data explains how the lakes are changing due to the water warming as the result of climate change.

The results could have far-reaching consequences for Andean water resources as the lakes provide 60 per cent of the drinking water for Cuenca, the third largest city in Ecuador.

"Andean societies are amongst the most vulnerable when it comes to the impact of climate change," says Dr. Michelutti. "Warming in the Andes is occurring at a rate nearly twice the global average and it's already impacting water resources as shown in this research. These changes are also a sign of bigger changes that are coming."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150209130734.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium= feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+S cience+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

more proof the earth is cooling!

[RandomGuy]

Danke.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

Because nothing says impartial consideration of data by using quotes around things.

If it is that important, submit it to peer review. The science and data will out.

Thing is, that if the climate really isn't changing much, and we really aren't driving a good deal of it, that will become harder and harder for this super-secret conspiracy to keep a lid on.

Data ac ulates.

So if you want to prove conventional scientific consensus down, all you need to do is write something a bit more solid than a stilted newspaper article and get to work

Until then, one might want to place a bit of skepticism and critical thinking on pronouncements from a guy like Christopher Brooker.

Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is an English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos.[3] In 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster.

or the gem where the same guy was saying that intelligent design was a great critique of evolution:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-notebook.html

The guy has a rather solid history of latching on to ONE source of information that conterveils common understanding and bloviating away his credibility.

He may have been wrong about smoking, intelligent design, asbestos, but he could still be right about "global warming". I will wait until his claims have been put through the wringer of peer-review, and subjected to a bit of actual scientific debate before accepting them at face value.

[RandomGuy]

Lastly, I will point out, yet again, that moderating CO2 emissions is beneficial to economies.

I have debunked claims of economic harm I have seen here, and asked for any proof that limiting CO2 emissions would do any harm to any economy other than Saudi Arabia's. I haven't gotten any.

So, even if this is some super secret conspiracy of scientists to fool us about warming climate, the policy result is, in the end, beneficial overall.

[unleashbaynes]

Somebody post that clip from the Newsroom and we'll call this thread a wrap.

[DarrinS]

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So guys what is wrong with the scale. The range of actual values goes from -.7 to 1.7 and the range is -1 to 1.5. In your own words explain how the scale is distorting and tell us what you think a better scale would be.

I'll help by giving an example that was used by Poptart in this very discussion.



Here the actual values are between -.5 and .8 yet the scale goes from -5 to 5.

Do you need me to hold you guy's hand here through the critical thinking?

The scale on you and Poptart's graph is over 8 times the range of the actual values.

You complained about the scale on the graph fkla posted but its scale is only 1.25 times the range of actual values.

Intellectual dishonest cowardice is the DarrinS way.

[DarrinS]

The scale on you and Poptart's graph is over 8 times the range of the actual values.

You complained about the scale on the graph fkla posted but its scale is only 1.25 times the range of actual values.

Intellectual dishonest cowardice is the DarrinS way.

I didn't complain about it. I laughed about it. The ACTUAL range isn't .

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The range is less than two degrees. Summer is 80 degrees hotter than winter here in Texas. DERP!

Ahh so you are back to acting like an ignorant dumbass regarding annual temperature anomalies. I know we have been over this before. Shall we revisit how the national academy qualifies such quantifications?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are climate changes of a few degrees a cause for concern?

Yes. Even though an increase of a few degrees in global average temperature does not sound like much, global average temperature during the last ice age was only about 4 to
5 °C (7 to 9 °F) colder than now. Global warming of just a few degrees will be associated with widespread changes in regional and local temperature and precipitation as well as
with increases in some types of extreme weather events. These and other changes (such as sea level rise and storm surge) will have serious impacts on human societies and the natural world.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static...hange-full.pdf

[SnakeBoy]

Data ac ulates.

Yes it does.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's so cute. You can see Yoni looking at the page and then Snakeboy posts. I don't know that they are the same but between that and them posting the exact same takes, I do wonder.

I found 10 very wrong statements from scientists so the work of all the tens of thousand of scientists worldwide are invalidated.

[Th'Pusher]

It's so cute. You can see Yoni looking at the page and then Snakeboy posts. I don't know that they are the same but between that and them posting the exact same takes, I do wonder.

I found 10 very wrong statements from scientists so the work of all the tens of thousand of scientists worldwide are invalidated.

Yoni, while a hyper partisan and a case study for intellectual dishonesty, is actually intelligent and well spoken.

Snakeboy, displays the partisanship and intellectual dishonesty in spades, but I don't think anyone here would characterize him as either intelligent or particularly well spoken.

[SnakeBoy]

It's so cute. You can see Yoni looking at the page and then Snakeboy posts. I don't know that they are the same but between that and them posting the exact same takes, I do wonder.

My Yoni persona no longer posts. I...He made a thread about it.

[Darth_Pelican]

I lol'd in my office just now

[RandomGuy]

Yoni, while a hyper partisan and a case study for intellectual dishonesty, is actually intelligent and well spoken.

Snakeboy, displays the partisanship and intellectual dishonesty in spades, but I don't think anyone here would characterize him as either intelligent or particularly well spoken.

Seconded, although I would give Snakeboy a few points here and there for being more honest than Yonivore. Certainly never seen SB try to tap dance around apologizing for torture. That takes some special talent at lying to your face and rationalization of immoral behavior to attempt.

[RandomGuy]

Yes it does.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...F-8#q=strawman

Meh.

Sorry, argument by strawman says less about the issue involved and more about the person making it.