Australian Politics Forum - This is why InfoWars is not a source

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20287
Gender: male

Re: This is why InfoWars is not a source
Reply #15 - Feb 25^th, 2017 at 11:29am

Re Snopes- perhaps you remember this?-

"On 4 February 2017, the British tabloid Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail‘s online site) published an article by David Rose — a longtime proponent of climate change conspiracy theories whose analyses the scientific community widely regards as flawed and deceptive — alleging that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used misleading data in order to rush publication of a groundbreaking climate study and thereby “dupe” world leaders:"

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

In the Mail on Sunday -

"This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’."

"A final, approved version has still not been issued."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manip...

Now nowhere in the Snopes piece does it address the fact that both the land and and sea datasets are unusable. Or that both need replacing. Instead they insist it was a mere oversight that the data wasn't archived. It makes no difference if the data wasn't archived if both datasets are faulty.

You would think that Snopes would address this very basic issue.

As for the Karl et al 2015 paper it has a self-admitted significance of 0.1. A good significance is 0.01, a reasonable one is 0.05. 0.1 is crap.

Back to top

IP Logged

AiA

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 18405
Gender: male

Re: This is why InfoWars is not a source
Reply #16 - Feb 25^th, 2017 at 11:33am

lee wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

Re Snopes- perhaps you remember this?-

"On 4 February 2017, the British tabloid Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail‘s online site) published an article by David Rose — a longtime proponent of climate change conspiracy theories whose analyses the scientific community widely regards as flawed and deceptive — alleging that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used misleading data in order to rush publication of a groundbreaking climate study and thereby “dupe” world leaders:"

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

In the Mail on Sunday -

"This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’."

"A final, approved version has still not been issued."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manip...

Now nowhere in the Snopes piece does it address the fact that both the land and and sea datasets are unusable. Or that both need replacing. Instead they insist it was a mere oversight that the data wasn't archived. It makes no difference if the data wasn't archived if both datasets are faulty.

You would think that Snopes would address this very basic issue.

As for the Karl et al 2015 paper it has a self-admitted significance of 0.1. A good significance is 0.01, a reasonable one is 0.05. 0.1 s crap.

Remember the Fish People? We are screwed people!

Back to top

“Jerry, just remember: It’s not a lie … if you believe it.” George Costanza

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: This is why InfoWars is not a source Reply #17 - Feb 25^th, 2017 at 4:55pm and lee wants to include Snopes in with the infowars garbage? WHAT ARE YOU???
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20287 Gender:	Re: This is why InfoWars is not a source Reply #18 - Feb 25^th, 2017 at 8:20pm longweekend58 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 4:55pm: and lee wants to include Snopes in with the infowars garbage? WHAT ARE YOU??? Perhaps you could critique what Snopes wrote about Bates and Karl.
Back to top	IP Logged