Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree21Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 6th, 2017, 10:48 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 21,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
More than a few people glorify the so called PHD elitist status. When I was young my Dad had a friend who had a Doctor of Education Degree and got published, he insisted that we all call him Doctor even when he came over for Sunday dinner. High falutin' PHD's need to be knocked down more than a peg or two.
There are arrogant people of every educational status (just look around DTT). My husband has a Ph.D - and he'd laugh hysterically if you called him 'Doctor.'
(Though we do use his title when making reservations because we get better service than two long-haired tattooed hippies would ordinarily )
Thanks from Twisted Sister and Clara007
tristanrobin is offline  
Old July 6th, 2017, 11:30 AM   #32
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
There are arrogant people of every educational status (just look around DTT). My husband has a Ph.D - and he'd laugh hysterically if you called him 'Doctor.'
(Though we do use his title when making reservations because we get better service than two long-haired tattooed hippies would ordinarily )
I've only ever used mine when I lived in England, which at least then was still very much a class society. And for the same reason.
RNG is offline  
Old July 6th, 2017, 11:50 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
There are arrogant people of every educational status (just look around DTT). My husband has a Ph.D - and he'd laugh hysterically if you called him 'Doctor.'
(Though we do use his title when making reservations because we get better service than two long-haired tattooed hippies would ordinarily )
Never criticize a Medical Doctor's hand drawn water color painting. I said your painting is fuzzy and can't tell what it represents. His abstract painting of a frog, tree and pond was undecipherable but after he told me what it was, I could see the frog, tree and pond and we remained friends, then he had me critique his new paintings and his artistry improved. Thanks to Dr. Bob, the nickname the hospital gave me.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old July 7th, 2017, 05:19 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by League of Justice View Post
The following is an analysis of a similarly misleading chart from Christy's congressional testimony, of which shares some of the very same issues as the chart that has been provided above.:


Quote:
Republicans' favorite climate chart has some serious problems

Dana Nuccitelli
Friday 19 February 2016 09.28 EST

As usual, cherry picking and misrepresentations are used to oppose climate policies

There’s a chart that’s become the favorite, go-to among those who distort climate science in order to justify opposition to climate policies. It’s shown up in many conservative media outlets like The Wall Street Journal and The Australian. It’s been presented by congressional Republicans’ favorite climate witness, John Christy, in recent hearings called by Ted Cruz and Lamar Smith.

The chart, which tries to compare estimates of the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere to model simulations, is full of problems. Its purpose is clear – to make it appear that climate models are unreliable, and thus cast doubt on all of climate science and the tremendous risks posed by human-caused global warming. In other words, its purpose is to undermine climate policy efforts to reduce those risks by slowing global warming.

But as with all charts of such singular, unscientific purposes, it’s simply another example of cherry picked data being presented in a multiply misleading way, as the annotated version below illustrates (for an animated version, click here).

...

1) The data are misleadingly misaligned

To start, the observational and simulated model data are aligned at a single point at the start of the graph, in 1979. That choice serves to visually exaggerate any difference between the models and data. When doing this sort of comparison properly, climate scientists will average the data over a period called the “baseline,” usually between 10 and 30 years, so that any abnormally hot or cold single years in the data or model runs don’t throw off the alignment.

In fact, there was recently a paper published by Hawkins & Sutton showing that the choice of baseline can significantly impact how accurate the models appear in this sort of comparison, and thus it’s important to carefully choose an appropriate baseline period and perhaps test the comparison with multiple different periods. Christy didn’t even use a baseline period to begin with! NASA Goddard director Gavin Schmidt did the comparison using a baseline period of 1979–1988, and as you can see, the result looks quite different.

...

2) The uncertainty is ignored!

Normally, climate contrarians love to harp on uncertainties. In fact, the whole argument against implementing climate policies to slow global warming hinges upon the backwards logic that we don’t know enough to take action.

However, in Christy’s chart, no uncertainty ranges are shown whatsoever. The difference this makes is clear in Schmidt’s version above, which shows the spread of individual climate model simulation runs (in grey), although doesn’t show the significant uncertainty in the observational data. When both are taken into account, the observations are consistent with the range of model projections.

3) Observational data disagreements are hidden

Christy’s graph also averages together multiple different observational data sets, which aren’t in terribly close agreement. Gavin Schmidt shows some of these in his version of the chart. Christy’s version also somehow glosses over the fact that atmospheric temperature estimates from satellites and weather balloons diverge in recent years.

4) The chart isn’t peer-reviewed or easily reproducible

Another problem is that Christy doesn’t say which observational data sets he’s averaging together, but there are more than three groups that use satellite data to estimate the temperature of the atmosphere (Schmidt shows four of them in his chart). So he could be omitting some of the data that shows larger warming trends.

We don’t know because this is “blog science.” The analysis hasn’t been vetted by other experts, or published in a scientific journal after being subjected to peer-review. We don’t even know if Christy is accurately representing the climate models, because they don’t produce a simple “bulk atmosphere temperature” output. As such, Christy’s chart should be taken with a grain of salt.

5) We don’t live on Mount Everest

The average elevation of the “bulk atmosphere” shown in Christy’s graph is 25,000 feet, which is just below the peak of Mount Everest, and not far below the elevation at which commercial aircraft generally fly. The temperature at such high elevations isn’t very relevant to humans.

We live on the Earth’s surface, so we care about the global surface temperature. And because we live at the surface, we have an easier time measuring the temperature here, so we know average global surface temperatures with more certainty than the atmospheric temperatures that Christy focuses on.

6) The rest of the global warming data show climate models are accurate

Atmospheric temperatures are just one of the many climate changes simulated by climate models. For example, climate models have done an excellent job predicting how much temperatures at the Earth’s surface would warm (e.g. see Mann et al. 2015).

...

Continued here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...rious-problems
Thanks from RNG
baloney_detector is offline  
Old July 7th, 2017, 05:36 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
More than a few people glorify the so called PHD elitist status. When I was young my Dad had a friend who had a Doctor of Education Degree and got published, he insisted that we all call him Doctor even when he came over for Sunday dinner. High falutin' PHD's need to be knocked down more than a peg or two.


NO! People who strive and obtain a PhD are a special breed. The amount of intelligence, ambition, time and money spent to get a PhD are almost insurmountable. These folks are held to the highest scrutiny by their peers and authorities. The list of their achievements (publishing, research, leadership, communication skills) speaks for itself.
Our daughter-in-law has a PhD and we have seen first-hand how difficult it is to reach that status. We should applaud those who go after the highest education the world of academia has to offer....and achieve it.
Clara007 is offline  
Old July 7th, 2017, 06:00 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by League of Justice View Post
You do realize that this chart CONFIRMS Climate change don't you?
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old July 7th, 2017, 06:31 AM   #37
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,419
It will be good if we can have the open public debate on climate we never had before the liberals declared the issue "settled", solely for reasons of politics.
webguy4 is offline  
Old July 7th, 2017, 06:33 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
It will be good if we can have the open public debate on climate we never had before the liberals declared the issue "settled", solely for reasons of politics.
Should we have a "public" debate on the theory of Gravity?

What is the point of a "public" debate when 90%+ of the public do not have the education or knowledge to adequately debate the topic?

The issue is "settled" not because of politics but because of science....the only possible result of a "public debate" would be to muddy the science with a bunch of NON scientists offering their opinions on a topic that they have no clue about.
Thanks from baloney_detector and Clara007
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old July 7th, 2017, 06:41 AM   #39
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Should we have a "public" debate on the theory of Gravity?

What is the point of a "public" debate when 90%+ of the public do not have the education or knowledge to adequately debate the topic?

The issue is "settled" not because of politics but because of science....the only possible result of a "public debate" would be to muddy the science with a bunch of NON scientists offering their opinions on a topic that they have no clue about.
Is algore, who flunked out of college, a scientist? The people I hear who call the issue settled are usually politicians.

The public needs to hear the debate if there are public policy decisions to be made, or you just wanna throw representative government out the window entirely? Should we all just bow down and give homage to our betters while we throw away our freedom?
webguy4 is offline  
Old July 7th, 2017, 06:44 AM   #40
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,419
Maybe we can consider gravity settled, since predictions based on our theories seem to be working.

Is climate science ever going to make a prediction that works?
webguy4 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
administration, challenge, climate, plans, science, trump



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ RNG Environment 250 November 28th, 2016 03:59 PM
Ted Cruz Challenged Science At His Climate Change Hearing. Science Won. LongWinded Current Events 27 December 12th, 2015 10:04 AM
Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World? LongWinded Current Events 45 September 29th, 2015 10:57 AM
Climate change and the 'settled science' bullies sumara Current Events 3 April 23rd, 2015 09:57 AM
Soot resolves paradox in climate science, scientists say intangible child Current Events 1 September 3rd, 2013 09:23 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.