Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 21, 2008 11:57:57 GMT -4
What would be your terms for a valid "factual objection?"
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 21, 2008 12:29:54 GMT -4
I don't have any terms. I'll give you what Webster says:
valid: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful
factual: of or relating to facts
objection: a reason or argument presented in opposition
Does that help?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 21, 2008 12:40:35 GMT -4
So, why do you consider graph that you posted is "well-grounded or justifiable" and "of or relating to facts".
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 21, 2008 12:50:16 GMT -4
Are you avoiding my question?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 21, 2008 13:03:50 GMT -4
Are you avoiding my question? Well you're certainly avoiding mine now.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 21, 2008 13:08:37 GMT -4
From what sources was this information compiled This graph was apparently compiled from HadCRUT3 data. Nice weasel-word. See the bottom-left of this page for a description of graph elements.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 21, 2008 13:16:48 GMT -4
Are you avoiding my question? Well you're certainly avoiding mine now. No, quite specifically -- I asked you a direct question and your response was to not answer my question and instead ask me a question. Your act of asking a question does not negate the fact that I had already asked you a question and you have not answered it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 21, 2008 13:18:33 GMT -4
Nice weasel-word. What I basically meant was "what criteria were used to determine what was and wasn't valid data?" Thank you for the link - it looks like it may actually provide some of those answers.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 21, 2008 13:25:42 GMT -4
No, quite specifically -- I asked you a direct question and your response was to not answer my question and instead ask me a question. Your act of asking a question does not negate the fact that I had already asked you a question and you have not answered it. I'm only using a technique you used before. If you object to it you shouldn't use it yourself. I already told you that I'm not convinced by either side as to whether the Earth is really experiencing a heating trend and consider the question essentially secondary to the question of whether or not human activity is causing the alleged warming. One graph isn't going to change my mind about whether warming is occurring unless I can see the data and assumptions that went into creating said graph (which Data Cable has made an effort to provide), and in any case it doesn't address what I consider the key issue here - is human activity causing it?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 21, 2008 14:38:08 GMT -4
Jason, If you like discussion of the data and assumptions that go into creating (climate change) graphs, you'll love this blog.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 21, 2008 15:07:40 GMT -4
Yes, I'm sure Jason will prefer that blog over peer-reviewed science publications.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 21, 2008 15:18:18 GMT -4
Jason, If you like discussion of the data and assumptions that go into creating (climate change) graphs, you'll love this blog. Blocked by my employer's firewall. Guess I'll have to look at that one at home. I'm still looking through the stuff DataCable linked to, but the document dealing with possible errors in the data and what they did to adjust it to get around them makes me regard the graph as essentially a good educated guess. As I said earlier, the world's climate is simply an extremely complex system. Correlating readings from temperature readings all over the world over the last 150 years is no simple task either. We're talking about such a small change over time and such uncertainties in all the educated estimates made to correct the data to show this rise that I find it difficult to muster any confidence for the accuracy of the conclusion that it actually is getting warmer. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm left pretty much where I started.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 21, 2008 16:05:24 GMT -4
One issue I have with computer based climate models is that they are inherantly circular. If you tell the model that increased CO2 leads to warming then the model will show warming when you introduce CO2. All it does is confirm the assumption you based the model on in the first place. I'd like to see the science that shows that increased CO2 does actually cause warming in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 21, 2008 16:30:26 GMT -4
Jason, If you like discussion of the data and assumptions that go into creating (climate change) graphs, you'll love this blog. Blocked by my employer's firewall. Guess I'll have to look at that one at home. I'm still looking through the stuff DataCable linked to, but the document dealing with possible errors in the data and what they did to adjust it to get around them makes me regard the graph as essentially a good educated guess. As I said earlier, the world's climate is simply an extremely complex system. Correlating readings from temperature readings all over the world over the last 150 years is no simple task either. We're talking about such a small change over time and such uncertainties in all the educated estimates made to correct the data to show this rise that I find it difficult to muster any confidence for the accuracy of the conclusion that it actually is getting warmer. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm left pretty much where I started. Heh. The blog is an ongoing discussion of statistics as they relate to the UN climate model(s) and the actual Earth climate data. Most of it is (to me) inscrutable statistics gibberish, but I find the parts in plain English fascinating (and well-reasoned). Apparently some institutions have recently started blocking access, probably because of the blogger's frequent mention of Monte Carlo (in the statistics context, not the gambling context, but try explaining that to a content filter).
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 21, 2008 16:32:22 GMT -4
Yeah - the firewall is classing it as a "games" category web site.
|
|