DKW 86 7,419 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 First blog to win a Polk award: http://en.m.wikipedi...rge_Polk_Awards And you are quoting wikipedia...And Rather and Maples got lifetime achievement awards after they lost their careers to Rathergate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,828 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 First blog to win a Polk award: http://en.m.wikipedi...rge_Polk_Awards And you are quoting wikipedia... Are you disputing this basic fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 First blog to win a Polk award: http://en.m.wikipedi...rge_Polk_Awards And you are quoting wikipedia... Are you disputing this basic fact? No, you are indeed quoting wikipedia... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 What's so bad about the daily mail? Serious question, not trolling. Cracked link. So prep yourself for some very NSFW language. Number 4 on the list. Glad - but not surprised - to see "Forbes" merited attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 First blog to win a Polk award: http://en.m.wikipedi...rge_Polk_Awards And you are quoting wikipedia... Are you disputing this basic fact? No, you are indeed quoting wikipedia... Nice weaseling! You're steadily getting more proficient at it. Oh, and btw: http://www.livescien...-wikipedia.html "In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts. And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute. The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Oh wow. At some random date at some time in the past a few random articles about random topics were said to be accurate for at least 2 nano-seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Oh wow. At some random date at some time in the past a few random articles about random topics were said to be accurate for at least 2 nano-seconds. Like I said, if you got nuttin', I suggest you not post at all. It would only help your image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 I don't often link The Daily Mail. Is there something I am overlooking with this article? Assuming Cracked is right, would this not be a "blind squirrel" or a "broken clock"? Sorry I missed this. This is silly tabloid click bait. They're acting like they got the NOAA to admit to some scandal and revealing information that was intentionally kept hidden, when in fact it is right there on the NCDC's website for the world to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Since when is CRACKED a serious journalism authority ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 This is one of the misunderstood debates. Most of us don't deny we are in a hot plateau. I think there is a 100% agreement there. What we mock is the 101 AGW Prognostications that completely failed to accurately predict the 15 year plateau. Many pointed out that maybe there was some connection to sun spots. We were told that sunspots had almost zero to do with global warming and that it was strictly AGW. BUT then, with supposedly even more bad gas in the air and more fossil fuels burned this platteau was suddenly reached. Please remember that Dr Mann, in his infamous hockey stick graph, claimed a LINEAR correlation between man made gases and AGW. How is this linear correlation still true if there is a plateau? The world wonders. Are we warm now? Yes. Are the fantastical predictions still looking ludicrous? Yes. Knocked it out of the park. Thanks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 This is one of the misunderstood debates. Most of us don't deny we are in a hot plateau. I think there is a 100% agreement there. What we mock is the 101 AGW Prognostications that completely failed to accurately predict the 15 year plateau. Many pointed out that maybe there was some connection to sun spots. We were told that sunspots had almost zero to do with global warming and that it was strictly AGW. BUT then, with supposedly even more bad gas in the air and more fossil fuels burned this platteau was suddenly reached. Please remember that Dr Mann, in his infamous hockey stick graph, claimed a LINEAR correlation between man made gases and AGW. How is this linear correlation still true if there is a plateau? The world wonders. Are we warm now? Yes. Are the fantastical predictions still looking ludicrous? Yes. Knocked it out of the park. Thanks!!! Tim, the problem is that the PC Loons on here and elsewhere CANNOT NOW, AND WILL NEVER, ADMIT that the AGW prognostications were complete crap.Dr Mann et al almost unanimously claimed LINEAR correlation of Man-creditable gases and AGW. Now that we have seen a 15 year plateau, that defies almost every single one of their theories, they cannot reconcile the facts with their believes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Oh wow. At some random date at some time in the past a few random articles about random topics were said to be accurate for at least 2 nano-seconds. Like I said, if you got nuttin', I suggest you not post at all. It would only help your image. Dude, its a wiki article. Please turn in your intellectual credibility as you leave in shame... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 Since when is CRACKED a serious journalism authority ? For a comedy website, they churn out some very insightful stuff from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 Oh wow. At some random date at some time in the past a few random articles about random topics were said to be accurate for at least 2 nano-seconds. Like I said, if you got nuttin', I suggest you not post at all. It would only help your image. Dude, its a wiki article. Please turn in your intellectual credibility as you leave in shame... Your fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 331 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I don't often link The Daily Mail. Is there something I am overlooking with this article? Assuming Cracked is right, would this not be a "blind squirrel" or a "broken clock"? Sorry I missed this. This is silly tabloid click bait. They're acting like they got the NOAA to admit to some scandal and revealing information that was intentionally kept hidden, when in fact it is right there on the NCDC's website for the world to see. No problem. Yeah, I get that but none of the media outlets I read or heard mentioned the details. They just seemed to run with the headline. I think that's the point for a lot of people. While some may run with "TDM got them to admit..." some also want to point out that "warmest year ever" isn't the whole story. FTR, I think we need to take care of our planet I just don't buy into the hysteria that some want to push. I wish there would be a REAL public discussion without all the hyperbole and fandom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 I don't often link The Daily Mail. Is there something I am overlooking with this article? Assuming Cracked is right, would this not be a "blind squirrel" or a "broken clock"? Sorry I missed this. This is silly tabloid click bait. They're acting like they got the NOAA to admit to some scandal and revealing information that was intentionally kept hidden, when in fact it is right there on the NCDC's website for the world to see. No problem. Yeah, I get that but none of the media outlets I read or heard mentioned the details. They just seemed to run with the headline. I think that's the point for a lot of people. While some may run with "TDM got them to admit..." some also want to point out that "warmest year ever" isn't the whole story. FTR, I think we need to take care of our planet I just don't buy into the hysteria that some want to push. I wish there would be a REAL public discussion without all the hyperbole and fandom. That's fair. They definitely should have mentioned the probabilities in the headline. Maybe "NOAA says there were good odds that 2014 was the warmest year on record." I too wish we could have this discussion with more civility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 That's fair. They definitely should have mentioned the probabilities in the headline. Maybe "NOAA says there were good odds that 2014 was the warmest year on record." a 38% probability is not good odds. That is less than a coin flip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,141 Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 That's fair. They definitely should have mentioned the probabilities in the headline. Maybe "NOAA says there were good odds that 2014 was the warmest year on record." a 38% probability is not good odds. That is less than a coin flip. NCDC says 48%. I'm wondering where The Daily Mail got that number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Oh wow. At some random date at some time in the past a few random articles about random topics were said to be accurate for at least 2 nano-seconds. Like I said, if you got nuttin', I suggest you not post at all. It would only help your image. Dude, its a wiki article. Please turn in your intellectual credibility as you leave in shame... It was a wiki article reporting on studies done by "Nature", "Journal of Clinical Oncology", "The Guardian", "Pro", "Library Journal", the "Canadian Library Association", and several peer-reviewed academic studies. You didn't even read it did you? You are a great one to talk about intellectual credibility. :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Since when is CRACKED a serious journalism authority ? What's a journalism "authority"? Is it an elected or appointed position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 First blog to win a Polk award: http://en.m.wikipedi...rge_Polk_Awards And you are quoting wikipedia... Are you disputing this basic fact? No, he's weaseling by shifting attention to the source reporting the basic fact. (As if wiki was a faulty source to begin with.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I don't often link The Daily Mail. Is there something I am overlooking with this article? Assuming Cracked is right, would this not be a "blind squirrel" or a "broken clock"? Sorry I missed this. This is silly tabloid click bait. They're acting like they got the NOAA to admit to some scandal and revealing information that was intentionally kept hidden, when in fact it is right there on the NCDC's website for the world to see. No problem. Yeah, I get that but none of the media outlets I read or heard mentioned the details. They just seemed to run with the headline. I think that's the point for a lot of people. While some may run with "TDM got them to admit..." some also want to point out that "warmest year ever" isn't the whole story. FTR, I think we need to take care of our planet I just don't buy into the hysteria that some want to push. I wish there would be a REAL public discussion without all the hyperbole and fandom. What "hysteria"? I get my information on AGW from scientifically respected sources. I haven't seen any hysteria from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 That's fair. They definitely should have mentioned the probabilities in the headline. Maybe "NOAA says there were good odds that 2014 was the warmest year on record." a 38% probability is not good odds. That is less than a coin flip. NCDC says 48%. I'm wondering where The Daily Mail got that number. Wow, so we know as accurately as a coin flip whether or not we actually have a warming cycle?So, we either do or we dont? Well that really cleared things right up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 That's fair. They definitely should have mentioned the probabilities in the headline. Maybe "NOAA says there were good odds that 2014 was the warmest year on record." a 38% probability is not good odds. That is less than a coin flip. NCDC says 48%. I'm wondering where The Daily Mail got that number. Wow, so we know as accurately as a coin flip whether or not we actually have a warming cycle?So, we either do or we dont? Well that really cleared things right up... No, the subject is whether or not 2014 is the warmest year recorded. It must be terrible - or maybe reassuring - to always be confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 331 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I don't often link The Daily Mail. Is there something I am overlooking with this article? Assuming Cracked is right, would this not be a "blind squirrel" or a "broken clock"? Sorry I missed this. This is silly tabloid click bait. They're acting like they got the NOAA to admit to some scandal and revealing information that was intentionally kept hidden, when in fact it is right there on the NCDC's website for the world to see. No problem. Yeah, I get that but none of the media outlets I read or heard mentioned the details. They just seemed to run with the headline. I think that's the point for a lot of people. While some may run with "TDM got them to admit..." some also want to point out that "warmest year ever" isn't the whole story. FTR, I think we need to take care of our planet I just don't buy into the hysteria that some want to push. I wish there would be a REAL public discussion without all the hyperbole and fandom. What "hysteria"? I get my information on AGW from scientifically respected sources. I haven't seen any hysteria from them. I wasn't necessarily calling out anyone here as I typed that. My mind was more on society as a whole where you have sides that try to shout down the the opposition, or shame the opposition and no real reasonable debate takes place. The sides look more to score points than actually discuss anything rationally. And, I fully admit that I have attempted to score points on here before. Right, wrong, or indifferently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.