Zimbabwe: American lion killer's extradition being sought

Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right
  • Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’
  • But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error
  • Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3oTen21nF


Call me another name now, or simply fall back upon your favorite..."dingus".
Good job!
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:
Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right
  • Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’
  • But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error
  • Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3oTen21nF


Call me another name now, or simply fall back upon your favorite..."dingus".
Good job!
Click to expand...
That's a dailymail link, ya dingus.
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
That's a dailymail link, ya dingus.
Click to expand...
MuyLocoNC said:
That's nice, I didn't mention the Dailymail.
Click to expand...

Wow...they must have simply made everything up...how convenient blissful ignorance is, it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
Sorry, but the piece specifically references NASA.

I cited the Mails's critique, and AC seems to think that he can blithely dismiss the piece which cites NASA and the margin of error.
Hahahaha.
 
Last edited:
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Fine, breitbart.
Click to expand...
Lol, you forgot Faux News. I understand you're cornered and you know you've lost, but have a little dignity.

That's what happens when you assert listed percentages of probability in a chart ranking years by probability percentages don't actually represent the percentage of probability, followed by silence when asked what they do represent.

For the win. Checkmate. Auf Wiedersehen.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:
Wow...they must have simply made everything up...how convenient blissful ignorance is, it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
Sorry, but the piece specifically references NASA.

I cited the Mails's critique, and AC seems to think that he can blithely dismiss the piece which cites NASA and the margin of error.
Hahahaha.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the piece is misleading and does not represent the findings of NASA, if it did, you'd have cited NASA, ya dingus.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Lol, you forgot Faux News. I understand you're cornered and you know you've lost, but have a little dignity.

That's what happens when you assert listed percentages of probability in a chart ranking years by probability percentages don't actually represent the percentage of probability, followed by silence when asked what they do represent.

For the win. Checkmate. Auf Wiedersehen.
Click to expand...
So you got that quote from Faux News? That explains it, since it sure as fuck didn't come from NASA.

By the way, NASA concluded unequivocally that 2014 was the hottest year on record, ya dingus.
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Sorry, but the piece is misleading and does not represent the findings of NASA, if it did, you'd have cited NASA, ya dingus.
Click to expand...
Hhahahahahaha
If you were certain of your science, you would not be compelled to call anyone names.
You just can't help it!
Good job!
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
Well to be fair, the Daily Mail is a tabloid and is also known as not the shining beacon of truthful journalism. I read the article and it's still a little questionable. The margin of error was 0.1C which is .18F. One example is where they quote the guy from the Unviersity of Redding saying that "Over the past 15 years we've seen a slower rate of warming," but then in the next paragraph they go on to expound on his quote saying that "15 years isn't a long time at all." It's a kind of "gotcha" journalism.
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
Well to be fair, the Daily Mail is a tabloid and is also known as not the shining beacon of truthful journalism. I read the article and it's still a little questionable. The margin of error was 0.1C which is .18F. One example is where they quote the guy from the Unviersity of Redding saying that "Over the past 15 years we've seen a slower rate of warming," but then in the next paragraph they go on to expound on his quote saying that "15 years isn't a long time at all." It's a kind of "gotcha" journalism.
Click to expand...
Fair enough...
It was the easiest google grab that buttressed my point that NASA did indeed cite a margin of error.
AC is seemingly, or purposefully ignorant of this fact
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:
Fair enough...
It was the easiest google grab that buttressed my point that NASA did indeed cite a margin of error.
AC is seemingly, or purposefully ignorant of this fact
Click to expand...
Yeah I always read the Daily Mail with a grain of salt. They do sometimes have good articles, sometimes they purposefully blow things out of proportion or understate them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top