The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[TheSkepticChristian]

I never made that conclusion.  No contradiction.  I never corrected myself either.  I have been saying the same thing all along. 

 

See post 961, you said 

"2014 only has about a 38% chance of being warmer than 1880 (translation - unlikely), and only a 15% chance of being warmer than 2010 (translation - very unlikely)"

 

Your correction, see post 994

"Translation - it is "very unlikely" that 2014 was warmer that 2010. Only a 15% greater chance"

The word "greater" is absent from your original statement, that is a correction, but you still need to correct the first sentence of your correction. 

 

but you seriously cannot see that logical contradiction?  

 

I am the only one that can see it? I hope not 

Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

See post 961, you said 

"2014 only has about a 38% chance of being warmer than 1880 (translation - unlikely), and only a 15% chance of being warmer than 2010 (translation - very unlikely)"

 

Your correction, see post 994

"Translation - it is "very unlikely" that 2014 was warmer that 2010. Only a 15% greater chance"

The word "greater" is absent from your original statement, that is a correction, but you still need to correct the first sentence of your correction. 

 

but you seriously cannot see that logical contradiction?  

 

I am the only one that can see it? I hope not 

There is nothing to correct. The math adds up. What you need to do is look at what is being talked about and stop making into something it is not.

 

38% chance is still unlikely. Looking at that alone in isolation it is still unlikely to have been the hottest since 1998.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[pogi]

but you seriously cannot see that logical contradiction?  

The word "greater" is absent from your original statement, that is a correction, but you still need to correct the first sentence of your correction. 

 

 

No contradiction.  I didn't need to say "greater" the numbers already did that for me.  38% vs 23%, which has the greater chance - come on now MFT, I don't need to spell out every elementary detail for you do I?

Edited April 23, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

No contradiction.  I didn't need to say "greater" the numbers already did that for me.  38% vs 23%, which has the greater chance - common now MFT, I don't need to spell out every elementary detail for you do I?

 

Put it in an abstract.

[TheSkepticChristian]

38% chance is still unlikely. Looking at that alone in isolation it is still unlikely to have been the hottest since 1998.

 

I am currently not talking about that. I am simply pointing pogi's logical contradiction. 

 

No contradiction.  I didn't need to say "greater" the numbers already did that for me.  38% vs 23%

 

Please read your own original sentence, and also read your other sentence 

 

Your correction, see post 994 

 

 

"Translation - it is "very unlikely" that 2014 was warmer that 2010. Only a 15% greater chance"

 

How is it very unlikely that 2014 is warmer than 2010, but at the same time it has 15% greater chance than 2010? Contradiction.

 

Oh boy, your sentence has nothing to do with 38% vs 23%.  You are not putting careful attention to what you are saying. 

 

or are you playing games with me? 

Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

  I didn't need to say "greater" the numbers already did that for me.  

 

It changed the meaning of your original sentence, read it 

 

 

 

"2014 only has about a 38% chance of being warmer than 1880 (translation - unlikely), and only a 15% chance of being warmer than 2010 (translation - very unlikely

[pogi]

How is it very unlikely for 2014 to be warmer than 2010, but at the same time it has 15% greater chance than 2010? Contradiction.

 

 

You can't be serious?

 

15% is a greater chance, but it is still an unlikely chance i.e. - the chances are low, low confidence in likelihood, the odds are no bueno!, how else can I put it to help it sink in?   Do I need to bust out the link that shows that 15% is an unlikely chance?  Seriously? 

 

I think it is you who are playing games.  

Edited April 23, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

You can't be serious?

 

15% is a greater chance, but it is still an unlikely chance

 

Yes, 15% is a greater chance, I agree it is still an unlikely chance, but that is not what you said.

 

Your contradiction in two parts red and blue 

it is "very unlikely" that 2014 was warmer that 2010. Only a 15% greater chance

 

 You said that it is very unlikely that 2014 was warmer than 2010, see it?  

 

and you originally said that 2014 only had a 14% chance of being warmer than 2010 (see post 994) 

 

So, how is it very unlikely that 2014 was warmer than 2010?  You still don't see the contradiction? 

Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am currently not talking about that. I am simply pointing pogi's logical contradiction. 

 

 

Please read your own original sentence, and also read your other sentence 

 

Your correction, see post 994 

 

How is it very unlikely that 2014 is warmer than 2010, but at the same time it has 15% greater chance than 2010? Contradiction.

 

Oh boy, your sentence has nothing to do with 38% vs 23%.  You are not putting careful attention to what you are saying. 

 

or are you playing games with me? 

Wow.

 

So he is looking at it at it as a whole (2014) when he said "but at the same time it has 15% greater chance than 2010?"

 

 

There is no contradiction.

[pogi]

Yes, 15% is a greater chance, I agree it is still an unlikely chance

it is "very unlikely" that 2014 was warmer that 2010. Only a 15% greater chance 

 

 

Do you see how these are the same?  If you agree with me, why do you insist there is a contradiction?

 

and you originally said that 2014 only had a 14% chance of being warmer than 2010 (see post 994) 

 

 

post 994 says 15%.  You want me to be wrong so bad that your mind is playing tricks on you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, 15% is a greater chance, I agree it is still an unlikely chance, but that is not what you said.

 

Your contradiction in two parts red and blue 

 

 You said that it is very unlikely that 2014 was warmer than 2010, see it?  

 

and you originally said that 2014 only had a 14% chance of being warmer than 2010 (see post 994) 

 

So, how is it very unlikely that 2014 was warmer than 2010?  You still don't see the contradiction? 

Lol. Yeah he is not talking about it individually here. He could have worded it better.

 

2014 is unlikely to be hotter than 1998.

2010 is less likely  than 2014 by 15%. That is essentially what he is saying.

[thesometimesaint]

Lol. Yeah he is not talking about it individually here. He could have worded it better.

 

2014 is unlikely to be hotter than 1998.

2010 is less likely  than 2014 by 15%. That is essentially what he is saying.

SEE http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?_r=0

SEE http://www.astrobio.net/news-brief/2014-warmest-year-modern-record/

SEE http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/

SEE http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/12/2014-track-be-warmest-year-yet-five-images-explain-what-s-happening

[pogi]

SEE http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?_r=0

SEE http://www.astrobio.net/news-brief/2014-warmest-year-modern-record/

SEE http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/

SEE http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/12/2014-track-be-warmest-year-yet-five-images-explain-what-s-happening

 

You are all alone on this one TSS.  MFT said:

 

I admit that 2014 is not likely the  hottest year,

 

 

A clip from your unscientific and liberal-biased literature:

 

Last year was the hottest on earth since record-keeping began in 1880, scientists reported on Friday, underscoring warnings about the risks of runaway greenhouse gas emissions and undermining claims by climate change contrarians that global warming had somehow stopped.

 

 

 

In an effort to shut-up the skeptics, they inadvertently shot themselves in the foot with their bold faced deception.  MFT has seen the light, now it is your turn TSS.  You can't tell me that these scientists have no agenda!  Why don't they just let the numbers speak for themselves instead of mis-speaking for them?  

Edited April 23, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

Do you see how these are the same?  If you agree with me, why do you insist there is a contradiction?

 

You said

it is "very unlikely" that 2014 was warmer that 2010.

 

 

Mola Ram Suda Ram corrected that for you

 

 

2010 is less likely  than 2014 by 15%. That is essentially what he is saying.

 

Now that makes much more sense , but Pogi didn't originally say that

 

 

  You can't tell me that these scientists have no agenda!  

 

It was the NASA scientists that said 2014 has a 38% chance, not the skeptics. Therefore, the NASA scientists do not have an agenda, the skeptics do.

You keep ignoring that your argument is not relevant because 2014 has a very high probability of being on the top 3, and the top 5 are most likely after 1998, not before.  

So where is your pause? Still waiting

 

Read a nonpartisan science article, especially the conclusion. Your arguments are irrelevant.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obama-and-the-warmest-year-on-record/

 

 

2014 is unlikely to be hotter than 1998.

 

Not correct

Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

It was the NASA scientists that said 2014 has a 38% chance

 

NASA did not tell the media that 2014 only has a 38% chance (the Skeptics had to find it on their own), they told the media this:

 

Last year was the hottest on earth since record-keeping began in 1880, scientists reported on Friday

 

This sounds like an undisputed fact.  BIG (AND INTENTIONAL) DIFFERENCE!  No mention of the unlikely 38% chance.  You admit that it was not likely the hottest year, how can you justify such a misleading press release?  

 

Remember how President Obama said the same thing and was fact-checked on it?  Pres Obama was only repeating what the scientists and media were blasting in his face.  

 

So where is your pause? Still waiting

 

No you are not "still waiting".  I have explained it to you several times now.  It took you 51 pages to finally acknowledge that 2014 was more unlikely than likely the hottest year, I am not going to repeat myself for 51 pages again before it sinks in.  Go back and see what I have said on the matter.

 

Not correct

 

 

     

 

yes it is

Edited April 23, 2015 by pogi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Not correct

38% now represents a high degree of likeliness?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

     

 

yes it is

Rofl.

Thanks for the laugh.

[pogi]

38% now represents a high degree of likeliness?

 

Slight correction.  34% when you compare 1998 to 2014. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

NASA did not tell the media that 2014 only has a 38

 

NASA did tell the media that, according to a NASA spokesman, the PowerPoint containing this slide went online at the same time that the 2014 temperature record itself was announced, but the media does not report everything. 

 

 

 (the Skeptics had to find it on their own),

 

The skeptics don't tell you that 2014 is highly likely on the top 3. 

 

 how can you justify such a misleading press release?  

 

NASA does not control the media

 

 

No you are not.  I have explained it to you several times now.  It took you 51 pages to finally acknowledge that 2014 was more unlikely than likely the hottest year,

 

That is not accurate, I said it was true but not relevant. 

 

How many times do I have to tell you that the top five hottest years are most likely after 1998? Do you Math, Do some critical thinking 

 

 

2014 is unlikely to be hotter than 1998.

 

How is 1998 more likely hotter than 2014?

Oh boy, You guys are getting desperate 

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

Slight correction. 34% when you compare 1998 to 2014.

 

you guys have to be playing games 

Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Slight correction.  34% when you compare 1998 to 2014. 

 

 

Taking into account the uncertainty and assuming all years (1880-2014) in the time series are independent, the chance of 2014 being

• Warmest year on record: 48.0%
• One of the five warmest years: 90.4%

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1

 

So where is the pause? 

Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

NASA did tell the media that, according to a NASA spokesman, the PowerPoint containing this slide went online at the same time that the 2014 temperature record itself was announced, but the media does not report everything. 

 

 

 

The skeptics don't tell you that 2014 is highly likely on the top 3. 

 

 

NASA does not control the media

 

 

 

That is not accurate, I said it was true but not relevant. 

 

How many times do I have to tell you that the top five hottest years are most likely after 1998? Do you Math, Do some critical thinking 

 

 

 

How is 1998 more likely hotter than 2014?

Oh boy, You guys are getting desperate 

 

Again, I said from the beginning that 2014 was likely not the hottest year, but I also said it is not relevant because 2014 is very likely on the top five. 

Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

NASA did tell the media that, according to a NASA spokesman, the PowerPoint containing this slide went online at the same time that the 2014 temperature record itself was announced

 

Right, the power point went online (not included in the press release) and the intentionally misleading headline went to the media. 

 

NASA does not control the media

 

 

No, but they sure do influence them!  The media was just supposed to know that their statement that sounded like an undisputed fact was really only a minor possibility?  That's the media's fault for reporting what NASA told them? Get real!

 

 

How is 1998 more likely hotter than 2014?

 

 

I never said that, Mola never said that, Eray never said that...who said that?

 

You don't understand, because it is "unlikely" that 2014 was warmer than 1998 is not to say that 1998 was warmer.  The data is insufficient to come to a confident conclusion that there has been any warming.  The chance is small. 

[pogi]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1

 

So where is the pause? 

 

Where is your confidence that there has been any warming from 1998?  Let me tell you - 34%  In other words, scientists cannot say with any degree of certainty that there was been warming from 1998.  The chances are small. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

Right, the power point went online (not included in the press release) and the intentionally misleading headline went to the media. 

 

 

The slide was also discussed in the press briefing when the news of the new record was released.

 

I never said that, Mola never said that, Eray never said that...who said that?

 

you and mola "2014 is unlikely to be hotter than 1998." see Post 1011

 

Where is your confidence that there has been any warming from 1998?  Let me tell you - 34%  In other words, scientists cannot say with any degree of certainty that there was been warming from 1998.  The chances are small. 

 

I keep presenting the facts but you keep ignoring them. The fact that 2014 is likely one of the top 3 hottest years. 

The fact that 2010 is likely one of the top 5 years. 

 

Your NASA 34% is about the hottest ever recorded, but the number increases to 90% for the top five, can't you see that??

 

Give me a break, how many times do I have to quote NOAA? 

 

Taking into account the uncertainty and assuming all years (1880-2014) in the time series are independent, the chance of 2014 being

• Warmest year on record: 48.0%
• One of the five warmest years: 90.4%

 

 

You don't understand, because it is "unlikely" that 2014 was warmer than 1998 is not to say that 1998 was warmer. 

 

2014 is highly more likely to be hotter than 1998. 

Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian