Wow. Seems your only defense against facts is to claim people lied. Must be tough with the whole world against you. All you are doing is prove you have absolutely no idea what margin of error or scientific method are.
415000 years of temperature change.....true or false?
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Of course, we all know that double decimal places is beyond you.
That's based on your superior math skills?
This is hilarious coming from the guy who thinks the Earth's temperature increased by 0.18 degrees C from 2010 to 2014. The only two people on the planet who agree with your numbers are Groggy and actress Emma Thompson.
The reality is that you have no idea what a margin of error is.
And you definitely don't know what the words "statistically significant" mean.
NASA's data showed the anomaly in 2014 was the same as 2005 and 2010. It was a lie to state as a definitive fact that 2014 was the warmest year, as Gavin Schmidt conceded in his interview with the Daily Mail.
Still can't do the math?
Just answer the question.
Is the number 0.68 a higher number then 0.67?
Answer.
Hilarious is a guy who keeps focusing on the words of an actress as proof of something.
What do you mean? Other than Groggy, she's the only person on the planet who agrees with your numbers.
Fine. She's an actress and doesn't know what she's talking about. But your numbers are almost as ridiculous as hers: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5300753&viewfull=1#post5300753
What's your excuse?
Sober up, Groggy. I did answer it: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...rue-or-false&p=5342214&viewfull=1#post5342214
So lets summarize you arguments.
1) NASA, the NOAA, the IPCC are all filled with liars (except when you can take something they say out of context),
2) Some ditsy actress talks about incorrect numbers,
3) You post random links that don't say anything like what you claim (as in where in that post do I say anything about 0.18 C or 2010) and which show,
4) Your claims of predictions being wrong are contradicted by actual measurements of the past several years.
As I said, must be tough living in a world where everyone else is lying and out to get you.
Let's summarize Basketcase's logic by considering the following sentence: Basketcase is a transvestite.
What do we know about that sentence?:
-- There is no evidence that conclusively proves that it's true.
-- But it's possible. We certainly have no evidence that would allow us to say as an absolute fact that it's untrue.
Thus, according to Basketcase, the statement that "Basketcase is a transvestite" must be accepted as an honest statement of fact.
From now on, we'll start referring to Basketcase as Caitlyn.
What do we know about that sentence?:
-- There is no evidence that conclusively proves that it's true.
-- But it's possible. We certainly have no evidence that would allow us to say as an absolute fact that it's untrue.
Thus, according to Basketcase, the statement that "Basketcase is a transvestite" must be accepted as an honest statement of fact.
From now on, we'll start referring to Basketcase as Caitlyn.
Except for the measurements from the Met Office, NASA, the NOAA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, the IPCC, Berkeley Earth Sciences, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, etc. Their measurements all confirm the predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
The only person who seems to think the IPCC got it right is an actress, and you keep telling us you don't want to hear from her.
Wow. I doubt that kind of logic could even convince a 4 year old.Let's summarize Basketcase's logic by considering the following sentence: Basketcase is a transvestite.
What do we know about that sentence?:
-- There is no evidence that conclusively proves that it's true.
-- But it's possible. We certainly have no evidence that would allow us to say as an absolute fact that it's untrue.
Thus, according to Basketcase, the statement that "Basketcase is a transvestite" must be accepted as an honest statement of fact.
From now on, we'll start referring to Basketcase as Caitlyn.
So when the measurements fit right in the range of predictions on a graph you provided they are spectacularly wrong. I guess back to your claims of the scientists are lying again.
Nonsense. You keep mixing and matching different data sets to come up with your imaginary "warming."
The graph I provided was for CMIP3, not CMIP5. It was fine for its time (and confirmed the predictions have been spectacularly wrong) but current temperatures have to be measured against the current model runs.
The average of the CMIP5 models currently projects an anomaly of about 0.85 degrees C. The current HadCRUT4 anomaly for 2015 is 0.68 degrees C -- not even close.
Even in this El Nino year, the predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong.
I don't get this groggy business, but you apparently don't get the question.
A basic math question.
Is the number 0.68 a higher number then 0.67?
And if it is, then NASA is correct to state that 2014 was the warmest year (complete with notes on margin of error and the probabilities).
Once again you are trying to weasel out here.
But I will give you one more chance to prove you are not a complete juvenile idiot.
Unless the value(s) you keep on spamming includes the margin of error,...in this case +/- .05,...your are being a fraud,...trying to be tactful here.
Here is an example that EVEN you MIGHT understand,... pay special attention to the bold parts.
With margin of error, the statistics represented by the survey make sense. If a survey finds that 36% of the respondents watch television while eating lunch, the information is incomplete. When the margin of error is specified, say, 4%, then this means the 36% should be interpreted as 32-40%. This makes complete sense.
I did not create this example,...but found it by searching for you,...and thought it might be dumbed down enough for YA.
Maybe if I could find an example that uses apples or stuffed animals,...that might help,...let me know.
FAST
