How Global Warming Really Works

[phrodeau]

You were markin' on the twine, were you?

#unsoundsoundings
#jaquescoustou
#pilethatwaterhigh

What have you got? "Can't measure water because it slooshes around?" Out with it.

 

[Que]

Why couldn't you have carped at 4est in that post using your RobDownSouth login?

Oh, that's right. You're hiding your shame after outing yourself, yet again.

Have you already decided what the excuse will be for your absence, when you come back?

 

[Que]

What have you got? "Can't measure water because it slooshes around?" Out with it.

I look forward to seeing your "research." How did you gather your data?

 

[Que]

I do wish RobDownSouth would fuck off with his appeal to (his own) authority. He's demonstrated enough mathematical and scientific illiteracy that a reasonable person would call into question the fact of his degree(s), regardless of their specific focus.

100% agree. How does he claim a degree in computer science yet be incapable of constructing a logical narrative?

 

[Adre]

Someone’s Rob obsession is tipping over into pyschopathic. You do see this, right?

 

[phrodeau]

I look forward to seeing your "research." How did you gather your data?

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

Now click the link. Or not, and let AJ tell you that every tectonic plate on the planet is shifting downwards.

 

[adrina]

Someone’s Rob obsession is tipping over into pyschopathic. You do see this, right?

It's very visible from where I am sitting.

 

[Que]

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

Now click the link. Or not, and let AJ tell you that every tectonic plate on the planet is shifting downwards.

You work at NOAA?!??

That doesn't count for some of the discrepancies in their..I mean your...data.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

100% agree. How does he claim a degree in computer science yet be incapable of constructing a logical narrative?

Do you enjoy sucking AJ's cock? From the looks of it, maybe you'd rather be kneeling in front of Rob.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

You work at NOAA?!??

That doesn't count for some of the discrepancies in their..I mean your...data.

You do understand that the sense of the word research is contextual, do you not? You and AJ keep beating this non-existent dead horse.

 

[Que]

Do you enjoy sucking AJ's cock? From the looks of it, maybe you'd rather be kneeling in front of Rob.

Although it is progress that you are now expressing your homo-erotic fantasies more openly, it would probably be healthier if you didn't refer to yourself in third person while doing so.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Although it is progress that you are now expressing your homo-erotic fantasies more openly, it would probably be healthier if you didn't refer to yourself in third person while doing so.

You really ought to go outside and get some air. I'm worried for your sanity, Queef.

 

[Que]

You do understand that the sense of the word research is contextual, do you not? You and AJ keep beating this non-existent dead horse.

You do realize that Walter Mitty of the Church of global warming keeps mentioning all the research that he personally has been doing?

He doesn't call it Googling for confirmation bias, he doesn't call it browsing or perusing blogs and articlles. He calls it actual research.

He's not even reading the abstracts of scientific papers, much less the pspers themselves; he is simply reading reporting an occasional press releases.

Speaking of people with appeals to their self-authority you said yesterday that both I and watt were wrong but you were too busy to explain about what, or why. You appear to have plenty of time now why don't you go ahead and start in on that?

I'll wait.

 

[phrodeau]

You really ought to go outside and get some air. I'm worried for your sanity, Queef.

I'm not. It's pretty clear where his sanity lies.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

You do realize that Walter Mitty of the Church of global warming keeps mentioning all the research that he personally has been doing?

He doesn't call it Googling for confirmation bias, he doesn't call it browsing or perusing blogs and articlles. He calls it actual research.

He's not even reading the abstracts of scientific papers, much less the pspers themselves; he is simply reading reporting an occasional press releases.

Speaking of people with appeals to their self-authority you said yesterday that both I and watt were wrong but you were too busy to explain about what, or why. You appear to have plenty of time now why don't you go ahead and start in on that?

I'll wait.

So you don't understand. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Que]

You really ought to go outside and get some air. I'm worried for your sanity, Queef.

Oh, really?

What would you think about the sanity of a 59 year-old adolescent office drone who spends at least 25% of his employers time on little sock-puppet fames like the this:

Recap:

I mention that I've actually read (your) Bob's dissolution of marriage paperwork. I took the time to be clear about it by typing out RobDownSouth.

You lost track of who was speaking to whom, about what, and which ID you were still logged into when you typed:

LOOOL. And what did the filings say? Come on, man up, pansy ass. Consider this my permission to disclose the information.

If you don't, you're my bitch.

Then the mysteriously interested mackiemack shows up to deflect.

Next, Rob showed up out of the blue and posted simultaneously with Feynman (to "prove" he's not Feynman) and then withdrew without commenting on any of the above.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Tell you what, Queef; I'll toss you a bone.

If each measurement is only accurate to ± 2 cm, then the monthly mean cannot be MORE accurate than that — it must carry the same range of error/uncertainty as the original measurements from which it is made. Averaging does not increase accuracy.

Unless we're thinking about instrument resolution specifically, the above is wrong. Averaging over many data points does in fact increase accuracy, as can be seen from error propagation analysis (and I'm referring to random sampling error here). Watt contributors again demonstrate scientific illiteracy. I stopped reading there.

Enjoy, fuckface.

 

[Que]

Tell you what, Queef; I'll toss you a bone.



Unless we're thinking about instrument resolution specifically, the above is wrong. Averaging over many data points does in fact increase accuracy, as can be seen from error propagation analysis (and I'm referring to random sampling error here). Watt contributors again demonstrate scientific illiteracy. I stopped reading there.

Enjoy, fuckface.

That took you a full day to come up with?

Incorrect. Having more data points can increase the accuracy once you average but simply averaging in some inaccurate data points can never improve accuracy. The accuracy of an average of data points can never exceed the confidence interval of the data points.

Try again, Andy.

Geeze that was awkward, btw. If were you, I would bring back RobDownSouth and hide Feynman for a while. That was much more embarrassing than simply outing yourself as Fagman.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

That took you a full day to come up with?

Incorrect. Having more data points can increase the accuracy once you average but simply averaging in some inaccurate data points can never improve accuracy. The accuracy of an average of data points can never exceed the confidence interval of the data points.

Try again, Andy.

Geeze that was awkward, btw. If were you, I would bring back RobDownSouth and hide Feynman for a while. That was much more embarrassing than simply outing yourself as Fagman.

I hope you're not in a scientific discipline, Queef. Or in any position that requires higher than grade school reading comprehension, for that matter.

 

[Que]

I hope you're not in a scientific discipline, Queef. Or in any position that requires higher than grade school reading comprehension, for that matter.

Ok, Fagman. I really shouldn't put you on the spot and require you to think on your feet...Why don't you get back to me tomorrow on what I just wrote?

Meanwhile let's address you outing yourself as Rob yesterday...

Any thoughts on how you're going to try to spin that when you "come back" as Rob?

Are you going to simply say, "Yeah I was Fagman as an experiment, but I have never ever done it before not once, honest!!!"

 

[coachdb18]

......

 

[coachdb18]

Increasing the number of data points can improve precision (ie how well grouped your data are), but it has nothing to do with accuracy. If the exact value of what you’re trying to measure is 100, measuring more times does not impact how close to that value you are. In fact, more data points could just as easily lead to an average further from the exact value, and therefore a less accurate result.

 

[coachdb18]

......

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Increasing the number of data points can improve precion(ie how well grouped your data are), but it has nothing to do with accuracy. If the exact value of what you’re trying to measure is 100, measuring more times does not impact how close to that value you are. In fact, more data points could just as easily lead to an average further from the exact value as closer to it.

You're referring to bias, coach dweeb, a systemic issue.

Queef doesn't understand enough about statistics and random noise to notice that standard deviations can be made smaller than instrument tolerances for a particular datum (again, assuming some details about instrument resolution). That's what happens for ensembles of data points.

 

[coachdb18]

You're referring to bias, coach dweeb, a systemic issue.

Queef doesn't understand enough about statistics and random noise to notice that standard deviations can be made smaller than instrument tolerances for a particular datum (again, assuming some details about instrument resolution). That's what happens for ensembles of data points.

Https://www.prettygoodgoods.org/products/117501-manipulate-the-data-Tshirt