415000 years of temperature change.....true or false?

[Frankfooter]

I see.

So the onus was on journalists to click through to other web pages to determine whether the statements in the NASA news release were true or not -- because, according to Frankfooter, NASA can't be trusted to make honest statements in its news releases.

Its a fucking press release.
Its a one page summary, with links to the data that won't fit on one page.
Thats what a fucking press release is, you idiot.

What do you want them to do, include the full data and methodology in a 5 point font so small that you need a magnifying lens just to read the headline?

Idiot.

You accused NASA of lying when they specifically said exactly what you accused them of hiding.
Idiot.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Its a fucking press release.
Its a one page summary, with links to the data that won't fit on one page.
Thats what a fucking press release is, you idiot.

What do you want them to do, include the full data and methodology in a 5 point font so small that you need a magnifying lens just to read the headline?

The temperature anomaly for 2014 was the same as the anomaly for 2005 and 2010.

Hmm ... somehow, I managed to make the point above in one sentence. I'm sure NASA could have fit that sentence into its news release, and written a headline that reflected that factual reality.

That information was missing -- and the headline stated a blatant falsehood -- because the news release was lying. It's that simple.

 

[basketcase]

Try reading it again. This time, take your time and try to actually understand the story....

You just talked about groggy's nonsense yet here you are trying to warp reality to create claims of lying.

 

[Frankfooter]

The temperature anomaly for 2014 was the same as the anomaly for 2005 and 2010.

Except that statement, like most of what you post, is wrong.
0.68 doesn't equal 0.67 and doesn't equal 0.66.

You accused NASA of lying when they specifically said exactly what you accused them of hiding.
Now you've been going on and on for a few pages on this.
You owe the board, NASA and me an apology.

 

[basketcase]

I see.

So the onus was on journalists to...

Yes, the onus on journalists is to accurately report the news. NASA gave them all the information. Claiming NASA lied because a reporter didn't include all the details is asinine.

And whether you like it or not, 2014 is the hottest on record. To say otherwise is to admit you have no clue about measurements.

 

[basketcase]

The temperature anomaly for 2014 was the same as the anomaly for 2005 and 2010.
....

No it isn't. The margin of errors overlap but 2014 is higher than the others.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Claiming NASA lied because a reporter didn't include all the details is asinine.

No, I said NASA lied because it knowingly made false statements.

The NASA news release made the false claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record. NASA has no evidence to support that statement -- in fact, NASA's own data confirmed the temperature anomaly in 2014 was no different than 2005 or 2010.

NASA knew the statement about 2014 being the warmest year on record was false. That meets the definition of lying.

 

[Moviefan-2]

No it isn't. The margin of errors overlap but 2014 is higher than the others.

Wrong. Another guy who doesn't understand how a margin of error works.

And, clearly, you don't know the meaning of the words "statistically significant" -- just as I suspected.

NASA's data showed the anomaly in 2014 was no different than 2005 or 2010. The news release was lying.

 

[Frankfooter]

No, I said NASA lied because it knowingly made false statements.

The NASA news release made the false claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record.

Do you think 0.68 is a higher number then 0.67?

Answer.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Do you think 0.68 is a higher number then 0.67?

Answer.

Actually, the recorded anomaly at the time the news release was issued was 0.69 degrees C, with a margin of error of +/- 0.05 degrees C.

Do I think 0.64 degrees, 0.65 degrees, and 0.66 degrees are higher numbers than 0.67? No, I don't.

Do you?

Furthermore, if 2010 was at the high end of its estimated range -- 0.72 degrees C, for example -- and 2014 was at the low end of its range at 0.64 degrees C, there would be no way you could claim the temperature anomaly for 2014 set a record.

The temperature may have gone up. It may have gone down. It may have stayed the same. Given the margin of error, the differences between 2005, 2010 and 2014 are too minuscule to allow for any definitive conclusions.

Statistically, the anomaly for all three years was the same.

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually, the recorded anomaly at the time the news release was issued was 0.69 degrees C, with a margin of error of +/- 0.05 degrees C.

Do I think 0.64 degrees, 0.65 degrees, and 0.66 degrees are higher numbers than 0.67? No, I don't.

Do you?

Answer.

As usual, you have the numbers wrong.

0.68ºC was the reported temp.

Global surface temperature in 2014 was +0.68°C

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150116_Temperature2014.pdf
(third link in the real press release).

0.68ºC for 2014
0.67ºC for 2010
0.66ºC for 2005

Those are the correct numbers.

Once again, try to answer the question (hint, these are the real numbers).


Do you think 0.68 is a higher number then 0.67?

Answer.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Once again, try to answer the question (hint, these are the real numbers).

I did answer your question. Are you now trying to claim there is no margin of error???

You might want to try reading your own posts:

NASA/GISS margin of error is +or- 0.05ºC
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...rue-or-false&p=5341318&viewfull=1#post5341318

So much for your "real" numbers nonsense.

 

[Frankfooter]

I did answer your question. Are you now trying to claim there is no margin of error???

You might want to try reading your own posts:

No, you did 'moviefan' denier math and fudged the numbers.

This is a straight math question for you.

Is the number 0.68 a higher number then 0.67?

Answer.

 

[red]

Anyone who has dealt with Groggy/Frankfooter before is used to this nonsense.

He makes up some fairy-tale claim -- such as his "same flaw year to year" rubbish -- and then says, Prove it isn't true. (Naturally, of course, he offers no evidence to support his claim -- because there isn't any evidence. He doesn't even know what a margin of error is).

TERB is a website for adults. If someone insists on believing in fairy tales, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove the fairy tales aren't true.

Then why keep posting in another inane global warming thread?

 

[FAST]

As usual, you have the numbers wrong.

0.68ºC was the reported temp.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150116_Temperature2014.pdf
(third link in the real press release).

0.68ºC for 2014
0.67ºC for 2010
0.66ºC for 2005

Those are the correct numbers.

Once again, try to answer the question (hint, these are the real numbers).


Do you think 0.68 is a higher number then 0.67?

Answer.

Wow,...another bunch of UNEMPLOYABLES stating temps to a hundredth of a degree from thousands of data points from around the world,...with absolutely NO tolerance.

These guys are good.

And they can predict exactly how some ocean water current will effect the globes temp to two decimal places,...mind you this is solely to prop up their claim that there is no pause in the natural increase in the worlds temp.,...so we should take that with grain of salt.

But still,...this bunch is really missing their calling,...with their amazing grasp of probabilities,...they could make a fortune in the stock market,...or maybe not.

FAST

PS: frank,...you forgot to put +/- .05 after your list of "correct numbers",...or maybe it was intentional,...???

 

[out4fun]

True. For 415,000 years the temperature has been changing. From the data I have gathered, the temperature appears to go up during the day - and then down at night. however, Keep in mind, that I am not a scientist.

 

[FAST]

true. For 415,000 years the temperature has been changing. From the data i have gathered, the temperature appears to go up during the day - and then down at night. However, keep in mind, that i am not a scientist.

I don't know,...I think you would make a good one.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Wow,...another bunch of UNEMPLOYABLES stating temps to a hundredth of a degree from thousands of data points from around the world,...with absolutely NO tolerance.

I assume that with your superior skills with numbers (as you believe), that you have already made your millions?

 

[FAST]

I assume that with your superior skills with numbers (as you believe), that you have already made your millions?

But you see,...I have never claimed to be able to guesstimate to 2 decimal places.

And I know I have made a LOT more than you have,...or ever will,...but NOT by fraud,...

FAST

 

[basketcase]

No, I said NASA lied because it knowingly made false statements.

The NASA news release made the false claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record. NASA has no evidence to support that statement -- in fact, NASA's own data confirmed the temperature anomaly in 2014 was no different than 2005 or 2010.

NASA knew the statement about 2014 being the warmest year on record was false. That meets the definition of lying.

Very groggy to claim that is a lie.

Fact is 2014 had the highest recorded temperature. NASA spoke the truth. They also gave media and the scientific community full access to their data and details so claiming the lied by omission because some reporter chose to cut the details is moronic.