2024 US Presidential Election

[mal3volent]

So I read that the microphones will be turned off unless it is their turn to speak
so that's definitely an advantage for Biden
i wonder how close they'll be, and if trump will still be able to say things while Joe is talking to throw him off

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

i wonder who's gonna be more hopped up on amphetamines

 

[-=SS=-]

Yup. He said we still got reliable measurements for the purpose of seeing if sea level was rising as related to global warming, which he referred to as an established fact repeatedly. You've conveniently left that out again.

No, you have just missed the very simple point I made that 'established fact' does not make it so. He (and the consensus generally) forcibly implies that is a fact when it is not. That is the point. They resort to using circular logic of 'everyone thinks it is an established fact therefore it is', which is not the same as it actually being a fact.

The satellite data is not reliable at all, for all the factors mentioned in the video, and more. It uses the same technique we find in other scientific disciplines where they get around the pesky variability/unreliability in data by simply averaging out the discrepancies and solidifying a definition based on that average, based on a preconceived belief on what is happening, which obfuscates the actual truth. This isn't even hidden, they all smugly admit to doing it;

“Early releases of the satellite Geophysical Data Records (GDRs) often contain errors in the raw measurements, the measurement corrections, and the orbit estimates that are later corrected through an on-going calibration/validation process defined by the T/P and Jason Science Working Team.” - TOPEX/Poseidon team

We are already seeing the results of global warming.

No we are not. Maldives, still not underwater.

The weather patterns are being disturbed, but that is to do with the urbanization and deforestation of the world that is severely impacting the hydrological cycles ability to absorb and redistribute water. This is why flooding is becoming more apparent, and droughts more severe. It has nothing to do with the climate itself.

Ironically you never hear anything about that. Why? Because to address that would require the ruling class to loosen up the pesky problem of land ownership, to spread people out, and move away from city style living and back to more decentralized agricultural town type living. Which is the opposite of what they want, because they want people in urban environments where they can be controlled like cattle by cutting off their independence and self-reliance.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

No, you have just missed the very simple point I made that 'established fact' does not make it so. He (and the consensus generally) forcibly implies that is a fact when it is not. That is the point. They resort to using circular logic of 'everyone thinks it is an established fact therefore it is', which is not the same as it actually being a fact.

The satellite data is not reliable at all, for all the factors mentioned in the video, and more. It uses the same technique we find in other scientific disciplines where they get around the pesky variability/unreliability in data by simply averaging out the discrepancies and solidifying a definition based on that average, based on a preconceived belief on what is happening, which obfuscates the actual truth. This isn't even hidden, they all smugly admit to doing it;


No we are not. Maldives, still not underwater.

The weather patterns are being disturbed, but that is to do with the urbanization and deforestation of the world that is severely impacting the hydrological cycles ability to absorb and redistribute water. This is why flooding is becoming more apparent, and droughts more severe. It has nothing to do with the climate itself.

Ironically you never hear anything about that. Why? Because to address that would require the ruling class to loosen up the pesky problem of land ownership, to spread people out, and move away from city style living and back to more decentralized agricultural town type living. Which is the opposite of what they want, because they want people in urban environments where they can be controlled like cattle by cutting off their independence and self-reliance.

Wow. Circular logic indeed. I'll try to go more slowly. The link you are using to attempt to prove your point is citing global warming as an established fact. Your previous statement about established fact in general is irrelevant. Surgically removing only what you want to hear from the link you provided is the very definition of cherry picking.

You keep citing the Maldives not being underwater when it's been shown that no one predicted they would be by now. Try to keep up.

Your video explained that our sea level measurements were more than adequate to show a rise. Numbers may not be as precise as you want, but a rise is clearly shown. However. sea level measurements are just some of the data used to prove global warming. The steady rise in temperature and it's relation to the rise in CO2 combined with the temperature and CO2 being related throughout history is another.

In light of all this, and the fact that rainfall and storms have changed measurably as well, blaming weather on hydrological cycles only is a bit specious.

You might remember that science came up with the shiny thing you typed your post on. It gets a fair amount right.

 

[-=SS=-]

The link you are using to attempt to prove your point is citing global warming as an established fact. Your previous statement about established fact in general is irrelevant. Surgically removing only what you want to hear from the link you provided is the very definition of cherry picking.

So what. I posted that link because it is specifically talking about the immense difficulty in making measurements of sea-levels. It doesn't matter what the beliefs about global warming are of the video maker, the fact of the video is that it is immensely difficult in making the measurements in the first place. It's in the video title for christ sake.

You don't even understand the language you are using. What I did was not cherry picking. The whole premise of the video is that making those measurements is ridiculously difficult, that's the point of it, not about global warming. I didn't select some parts and ignore others on the difficultly in measurement itself, because all the video points are about how difficult it is.

The video maker slapping on his belief, and your acceptance of it, that they have 'overcome the difficulty to prove sea-level rise' is not a fact. The only fact in that video is that making the measurements themselves are ridiculously difficult!

 

[brokedownpalace10]

So what. I posted that link because it is specifically talking about the immense difficulty in making measurements of sea-levels. It doesn't matter what the beliefs about global warming are of the video maker, the fact of the video is that it is immensely difficult in making the measurements in the first place. It's in the video title for christ sake.

You don't even understand the language you are using. What I did was not cherry picking. The whole premise of the video is that making those measurements is ridiculously difficult, that's the point of it, not about global warming. I didn't select some parts and ignore others on the difficultly in measurement itself, because all the video points are about how difficult it is.

The video maker slapping on his belief, and your acceptance of it, that they have 'overcome the difficulty to prove sea-level rise' is not a fact. The only fact in that video is that making the measurements themselves are ridiculously difficult!

(sigh)
So, if the maker of the video was wrong about global warming, why could he not be wrong about the difficulty of measuring sea level?
You were presenting a video as proof of a point while saying that the author of the video is only correct in what he is saying about your point but is incorrect and unreliable in everything else he is saying.
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position."
wiki

 

[alasdairm]

^ indeed.

my understanding is that there are two main ways to measure: tide gauges; and satellite altimeters

they both have their pros and cons - tide gauges provide long-term data that satellites can't and altimeters provide sea level height to centimeter or millimeter accuracy (averaged over the entire globe).

the trick is reading regularly, and averaging over a long period.

so, even if it is difficult, that doesn't mean it's impossible. or unreliable.

both methods indicate that the sea level is rising, and accelerating.

so the obvious question is how accurate is accurate enough? well, good question

How accurate is accurate enough for measuring sea-level rise and variability

"Sea-level measurements from radar satellite altimetry have reached a high level of accuracy and precision, which enables detection of global mean sea-level rise and attribution of most of the rate of rise to greenhouse gas emissions. This achievement is far beyond the original objectives of satellite altimetry missions. However, recent research shows that there is still room for improving the performance of satellite altimetry. Reduced uncertainties would enable regionalization of the detection and attribution of the anthropogenic signal in sea-level rise and provide new observational constraints on the water–energy cycle response to greenhouse gas emissions by improving the estimate of the ocean heat uptake and the Earth energy imbalance."

alasdair

 

[-=SS=-]

the trick is reading regularly, and averaging over a long period.

Precisely. This is what they do. Which is obfuscates the truth. An average is not a direct measurement is it, it is a derived statistical 'truth'.

How the Universal Gravitational Constant Varies
Parallel example. This is something Rupert Sheldrake highlights in his criticisms of the scientific method; the big G constant might not actually be constant at all. There is tremendous variation (at the scale measured) and always has been, and he personally asked the people at the JPL laboratory in England about this. They admitted it varies, but crucially they also admitted that the issue was solved by fixing the definition by averaging the data. This is what happens, the international committees average the data and fix it as a definition.. but that is not the truth!

I'm really not interested in institutions (including journals) giving their own self assurances. They are biased in support of their own paradigm. What matters is the method itself, not their conclusions about it.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

^ indeed.

my understanding is that there are two main ways to measure: tide gauges; and satellite altimeters

they both have their pros and cons - tide gauges provide long-term data that satellites can't and altimeters provide sea level height to centimeter or millimeter accuracy (averaged over the entire globe).

the trick is reading regularly, and averaging over a long period.

so, even if it is difficult, that doesn't mean it's impossible. or unreliable.

both methods indicate that the sea level is rising, and accelerating.

so the obvious question is how accurate is accurate enough? well, good question

How accurate is accurate enough for measuring sea-level rise and variability

"Sea-level measurements from radar satellite altimetry have reached a high level of accuracy and precision, which enables detection of global mean sea-level rise and attribution of most of the rate of rise to greenhouse gas emissions. This achievement is far beyond the original objectives of satellite altimetry missions. However, recent research shows that there is still room for improving the performance of satellite altimetry. Reduced uncertainties would enable regionalization of the detection and attribution of the anthropogenic signal in sea-level rise and provide new observational constraints on the water–energy cycle response to greenhouse gas emissions by improving the estimate of the ocean heat uptake and the Earth energy imbalance."

alasdair

And, he clearly says, in the video linked, that we are pretty accurate as to measuring global average sea level. And he says, word for word, "Sometimes we need a global average which tells us something about the overall impacts of climate change." telling us that we measure sea level plenty accurately for that. It's sea levels (with an "s") that are harder to measure. That's almost the most basic point of the video.

He's either cherry picking in that regard as well, or simply doesn't understand the video.

-=SS=- I had to watch the darn thing again to get those exact words. I'm not going to keep doing this.

 

[alasdairm]

Which is obfuscates the truth. An average is not a direct measurement is it, it is a derived statistical 'truth'.

it doesn't obfuscate the truth. it just attempts to represent a wider set of data.

and they're not perfect - i don't think anybody here is saying they are - which is why they're rarely used in isolation, rather they are used with other metrics like standard deviation, median, quartiles, etc. to help ensure that outliers don't drastically skew the data.

why are you trying to obfuscate the truth here?

In the UK the average age of the Lords is 71.

This has been known conclusively since well before the end of 2020; the average age of mortality in the UK for covid was above the national average of all cause mortality (82 years old).

But the fact is people are dying in numbers above the average

averages can be useful as long as their limitations are kept in mind. as you demonstrably understand.

alasdair

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Precisely. This is what they do. Which is obfuscates the truth. An average is not a direct measurement is it, it is a derived statistical 'truth'.

How the Universal Gravitational Constant Varies
Parallel example. This is something Rupert Sheldrake highlights in his criticisms of the scientific method; the big G constant might not actually be constant at all. There is tremendous variation (at the scale measured) and always has been, and he personally asked the people at the JPL laboratory in England about this. They admitted it varies, but crucially they also admitted that the issue was solved by fixing the definition by averaging the data. This is what happens, the international committees average the data and fix it as a definition.. but that is not the truth!

I'm really not interested in institutions (including journals) giving their own self assurances. They are biased in support of their own paradigm. What matters is the method itself, not their conclusions about it.

Averages are plenty good to measure change over time. That's basic science. Saying, "Well, we don't know precisely at any one time." is just blowing smoke.

 

[jasperkent]

Yet. But you were well trained for it over the past four years all the same.

I don't know who thought they were training me, but they're gonna be very disappointed.

I'm about as "well trained" as a feral cat.

 

[Bagseed]

it doesn't obfuscate the truth. it just attempts to represent a wider set of data.

and they're not perfect - i don't think anybody here is saying they are - which is why they're rarely used in isolation, rather they are used with other metrics like standard deviation, median, quartiles, etc. to help ensure that outliers don't drastically skew the data.

why are you trying to obfuscate the truth here?







averages can be useful as long as their limitations are kept in mind. as you demonstrably understand.

alasdair

lol

 

[-=SS=-]

averages can be useful as long as their limitations are kept in mind. as you demonstrably understand.

Averages are plenty good to measure change over time. That's basic science. Saying, "Well, we don't know precisely at any one time." is just blowing smoke.

Not when we're talking about fractional measurements of a system that are directly contributing to a hysteria that wants to see our living situation fundamentally reorganized. We're not talking about some inconsequential thing here, the preciseness is of critical importance.

It's sea levels (with an "s") that are harder to measure.

Great, we're making progress here. You have to see the fundamental problem of taking averages of a system, using a methodology that is only taking averages from certain points and not measuring the entire thing (the total mass of water). There is an extrapolation going on. If they had accurately measured somehow the total mass of water and shown it had steadily increased that would be one thing, but that's not what has been done.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Not when we're talking about fractional measurements of a system that are directly contributing to a hysteria that wants to see our living situation fundamentally reorganized. We're not talking about some inconsequential thing here, the preciseness is of critical importance.

Great, we're making progress here. You have to see the fundamental problem of taking averages of a system, using a methodology that is only taking averages from certain points and not measuring the entire thing (the total mass of water). There is an extrapolation going on. If they had accurately measured somehow the total mass of water and shown it had steadily increased that would be one thing, but that's not what has been done.

Science doesn't care how important the result is. Proper methodology is still proper methodology. He states it is proper methodology in the video.

You're being purposely obtuse once again here. As you say, the statements about sea levels with an "s" is in regard to measuring sea level at specific points. He clearly states in the video that one point being higher due to variables will cause another to be lower and that that is the reason for the averaging

Again. As I said. With emphasis in the hopes you understand.
Averages are plenty good to measure change over time. That's basic science. Saying, "Well, we don't know precisely at any one time." is just blowing smoke.

To bring the thread back to the Presidential race. Biden would believe the video maker if his conclusions agreed with the majority of scientists. Trump would hear one thing in the video that he wanted to hear to the exclusion of all else and extrapolate a totally specious and likely dangerous conclusion. You might remember Trump hearing that bleach killed Covid and suggesting injecting it. You've done similar here.

 

[-=SS=-]

Science doesn't care how important the result is. Proper methodology is still proper methodology. He states it is proper methodology in the video.

And you just accept his statement that it is proper methodology, after outlining the fact of just how many ridiculous factors there are involved in such measurements and extrapolation?

Both tide gauges and satellite data are unreliable. If you dig into how they work and read around on discussions about them (by people in the field) you'll find this. Even NASA itself conceded just how unreliable the first series of satellites were, and also the major issue they had when comparing the data from these two methods (it didn't align).

Have a read of this for example, from a surveyor in the geophysical sector:
The Difficulties in Using Tide Gauges to Monitor Long-Term Sea Level Change

 

[brokedownpalace10]

And you just accept his statement that it is proper methodology, after outlining the fact of just how many ridiculous factors there are involved in such measurements and extrapolation?

Both tide gauges and satellite data are unreliable. If you dig into how they work and read around on discussions about them (by people in the field) you'll find this. Even NASA itself conceded just how unreliable the first series of satellites were, and also the major issue they had when comparing the data from these two methods (it didn't align).

Have a read of this for example, from a surveyor in the geophysical sector:
The Difficulties in Using Tide Gauges to Monitor Long-Term Sea Level Change

->Again<- (And I'm getting rather sick of repeating myself)
Why would you accept his data about some measurements being difficult and then suddenly not believe him on the methodology being proper? You are basing a claim you are making on a video and I'm simply saying that the same video contradicts what you are saying.

Please, this time don't just repeat yourself in different words in your response.

I already told you. I'm not chasing down any more links. You've already proven yourself less than credible on interpretation of them.

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

It's like measuring snow

(true story)

 

[-=SS=-]

Why would you accept his data about some measurements being difficult and then suddenly not believe him on the methodology being proper? You are basing a claim you are making on a video and I'm simply saying that the same video contradicts what you are saying.

Because all the factors that influence the final conclusion - which him, you and the mainstream subscribe to - are not bound to that final conclusion. He acknowledges many (but not all of them) of the problems in making the measurements, which are valid points in and of themselves. You all believe the conclusion is valid, I do not, because I see all the numerous factors at play in getting those measurements and see just how easy it is for a huge margin of error to creep in or to draw a faulty conclusion.

Put it another way; I'm not convinced that the conclusion drawn can be drawn, given the inherent multiple factors working against getting an accurate data set.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Because all the factors that influence the final conclusion - which him, you and the mainstream subscribe to - are not bound to that final conclusion. He acknowledges many (but not all of them) of the problems in making the measurements, which are valid points in and of themselves. You all believe the conclusion is valid, I do not, because I see all the numerous factors at play in getting those measurements and see just how easy it is for a huge margin of error to creep in or to draw a faulty conclusion.

Put it another way; I'm not convinced that the conclusion drawn can be drawn, given the inherent multiple factors working against getting an accurate data set.

What is your experience working with data sets? How about statistics?