OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Poupou Escobar]

Yep, low confidence still means more likely than not.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

What was their bias? What were they hoping to find? In the current climate (pardon the pun) that'd probably be that shit is all f**ked up cos humans.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I have low confidence in HJ being anything other than an intellectual lightweight.

 

[Gary Gutful]

What was their bias? What were they hoping to find? In the current climate (pardon the pun) that'd probably be that shit is all f**ked up cos humans.

*lettuce

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

IPCC AR5 synthesis report Page 53 section 1.4 Extreme Events

Top of right hand column

There is low confidence in observed global-scale trends in droughts, due to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the choice of the definition for drought, and due to geographical inconsistencies in drought trends. There is also low confidence in the attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century, due to the same observational uncertainties and difficulties in distinguishing decadal scale variability in drought from long-term trends. {WGI Table SPM.1, 2.6.2.3, 10.6, Figure 2.33, WGII 3.ES, 3.2.7}

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

So many Lolz...........

So, you did a search afterwards and claimed that to be a read? And you basically just supported my argument? Like, literally, you're "quoting" from the summary (synthesis) report about the exact thing I'm talking about (2.6.2.3). Word for word.

From the summary Not the actual report itself, with all the details and all the reference to work etc. You chose to fake a reading and you chose the report summary...

Thanks.

I mean, low confidence means low.

Scientists would normally use something like "there is no evidence to support..." or "no correlation was found, between..."

Not in the IPCC reports, mate. That is not the language they use at all. They ascribe confidence ratings.

Yep, low confidence still means more likely than not.

Ah, another person who has read nothing.

 

[Bandwagon]

So, you did a search afterwards and claimed that to be a read? And you basically just supported my argument? Like, literally, you're "quoting" from the summary (synthesis) report about the exact thing I'm talking about (2.6.2.3). Word for word.

From the summary Not the actual report itself, with all the details and all the reference to work etc. You chose to fake a reading and you chose the report summary...
.

Yes it's from the synthesis report. which forms part of AR5, there is no single "report" as such, AR5 is comprised of several reports by several working groups, and the synthesis report being smaller (size of download ) is much easier to reference properly for any one who could be arsed to check the reference ( you know, sourced mate ) to do so.

Are you going to claim the synthesis report is not part of the full AR5 report?

And it explains exactly why the rating of low confidence is used with drought, exactly as I said. because poor issues with available data, and importantly nothing to do with childish claims that rely on literally changing the definition of words.

Low confidence means exactly that, it's not a replacement for anything else. But hey, why take my word for it..........from "the report"...............( I think you'll find this exact same explanation in each of the components of the report, this one is from the introduction to the WGI report )

In this Report, the following summary terms are used to describe the available evidence: limited, medium, or robust; and for the degree of agreement: low, medium, or high. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high, and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. For a given evidence and agreement statement, different confidence levels can be assigned, but increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with increasing confidence (see Section 1.4 and Box TS.1 for more details).

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/09/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf

Bottom of page no 121.

So, why don't you explain to us how it can be that your claim of...............

So, in the absence of absolutes, "low confidence" means "no confidence".

...........can be when as we can see there are five levels of confidence they ascribe to findings, and most importantly here, the lowest level is "very low".

Now I don't know how these thing work in your world buddy, but I'm damn certain that in the real world "very low confidence", would be less than "low confidence", so if as you say low confidence is equivalent to no confidence, what the f**k is "very low confidence", less than none?

Please stop embarrassing your self.

 

[Happy MEel]

Yes it's from the synthesis report. which forms part of AR5, there is no single "report" as such, AR5 is comprised of several reports by several working groups, and the synthesis report being smaller (size of download ) is much easier to reference properly for any one who could be arsed to check the reference ( you know, sourced mate ) to do so.

Are you going to claim the synthesis report is not part of the full AR5 report?

And it explains exactly why the rating of low confidence is used with drought, exactly as I said. because poor issues with available data, and importantly nothing to do with childish claims that rely on literally changing the definition of words.

Low confidence means exactly that, it's not a replacement for anything else. But hey, why take my word for it..........from "the report"...............( I think you'll find this exact same explanation in each of the components of the report, this one is from the introduction to the WGI report )

In this Report, the following summary terms are used to describe the available evidence: limited, medium, or robust; and for the degree of agreement: low, medium, or high. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high, and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. For a given evidence and agreement statement, different confidence levels can be assigned, but increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with increasing confidence (see Section 1.4 and Box TS.1 for more details).

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/09/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf

Bottom of page no 121.

So, why don't you explain to us how it can be that your claim of...............

...........can be when as we can see there are five levels of confidence they ascribe to findings, and most importantly here, the lowest level is "very low".

Now I don't know how these thing work in your world buddy, but I'm damn certain that in the real world "very low confidence", would be less than "low confidence", so if as you say low confidence is equivalent to no confidence, what the f**k is "very low confidence", less than none?

Please stop embarrassing your self.

This is what is known as a “fatality” in mortal combat

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Very no confidence

 

[Gronk]

@BBC merkin with the fancy TV has us in his sights again.

 

[Twizzle]

we are an easy target atm with some of these pollies running the show

 

[Gary Gutful]

HJ was completely sodomised by Bandy.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

HJ was completely sodomised by Bandy.

Not at all. He said it himself - he only reads the synthesis because he can't be arsed reading the actual report.

Honestly, though, he only quoted the synthesis because that's what websearches bring up.

He hasn't read the report. You and he have that in common. Actually, a lot of people around here have that in common...

 

[Gary Gutful]

Not at all. He said it himself - he only reads the synthesis because he can't be arsed reading the actual report.

Honestly, though, he only quoted the synthesis because that's what websearches bring up.

He hasn't read the report. You and he have that in common. Actually, a lot of people around here have that in common...

If I was you I wouldn't be claiming that I read it. If you did, it's clear you didn't understand it.

 

[Bazal]

If I was you I wouldn't be claiming that I read it. If you did, it's clear you didn't understand it.

I have very low confidence that anything about this argument will change from the status quo despite the obvious

 

[Gronk]

With the passing of Terry Jones, it's quite apt to put this here.

 

[hineyrulz]

With the passing of Terry Jones, it's quite apt to put this here.

”HJ is not the messiah, he’s just a very naughty boy”

 

[Happy MEel]

”HJ is not the messiah, he’s just a very naughty boy”

 

[hindy111]

”HJ is not the messiah, he’s just a very naughty boy”

This is what he pays the Domantrix to say before he receives his punishment.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

*Dominator

 

[Eelogical]

With the passing of Terry Jones, it's quite apt to put this here.

Yet, neither person in this gif is Terry Jones. What a strange fellow you are.