OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Gary Gutful]

I actually deliberately didn't source them. Why? Because those two graphs (the sea ice and temperature graphs from the IPCC) are ones you should definitely know. I mean, if you actually read anything on climate change, that is...

Oh, I forgot...you don't...

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Here's an interesting one:

It's a composition of the first sea ice graph I posted (from the IPCC) and...well, shouldn't be too hard for you to find the main graph, should it?

Or don't you know how to research stuff? Do you need it all handed to you?

You completely, royally f**ked up your interpretation of what low confidence means and are still acting like you are smarter than everyone else.

I don't actually believe you've read any of this shit but even if you have its hardly a badge of honour when someone spent 5 min researching it and schooled you on it.

Still think low confidence = no confidence when there is also a category of very low confidence? At least you put your tail between your legs for a while, but it seems you've gone back to full dickhead mode.

 

[Bazal]

I particularly like the idea that someone who reads about something should automatically recognise everything associated with it.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I read a book about mincing and am now an expert.

 

[Eelogical]

I read a book about mincing and am now an expert.

I hope you shredded it later.

 

[strider]

"Mincing for Dummies"

 

[Bazal]

"Mincing for Dummies"

The successful companion to the famous book written for soft halfbacks, "Dummying for Mincers"...

 

[Gary Gutful]

I can recommend both books.

 

[Bandwagon]

You completely, royally f**ked up your interpretation of what low confidence means and are still acting like you are smarter than everyone else.

I don't actually believe you've read any of this shit but even if you have its hardly a badge of honour when someone spent 5 min researching it and schooled you on it.

Still think low confidence = no confidence when there is also a category of very low confidence? At least you put your tail between your legs for a while, but it seems you've gone back to full dickhead mode.

Here's something that gave me a giggle or two.

Now, HJ being such a super genius and all, what with all his reading of IPCC reports and stuff what no one else ever reads, is obviously above providing sources for his thread bombing.

So in the post you quote above , he posts his little graph, and offers up a little challenge to do some research, and whilst there are ways to find the graph, image search etc. easy enough, that doesn't tell you where he sourced it from.

But hey, meta data is magic stuff! Right click in chrome / inspect element, and here we have the metadata attached to the pasted image, which as we can see, contains the source of where this particular version of the image hosted

<img src="https://scontent.fsyd3-1.fna.fbcdn....5edcd28403e6ff558d3fe7e68bf65&amp;oe=5E903573" class="bbCodeImage LbImage" alt="[&#8203;IMG]" data-url="https://scontent.fsyd3-1.fna.fbcdn....5edcd28403e6ff558d3fe7e68bf65&amp;oe=5E903573" style="">

So what is fbcdn.net?

Here's the link to the image extracted from above......................Linky

Notice the familiar logo on your browser tab?

It aint exactly the IPCC

So many lolz.

 

[Bazal]

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I'm quite capable of "researching stuff " , I just don't consider trawling the web for the exact references of what you post as constructive use of my time, particularly given that whilst you are copying and pasting shit, the source is sitting there on the address bar of your browser.

If you don't want to source what you post, which just seems to me a bit of dick move, then don't.

But if that's the case, I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Trawling the web?

If you know what you're doing, it would take you less than 2 minutes to find it.

But you're nothing but a headline reader. You need an opinion handed to you. So I'm shocked that you don't even try to look for stuff.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

You completely, royally f**ked up your interpretation of what low confidence means and are still acting like you are smarter than everyone else.

I don't actually believe you've read any of this shit but even if you have its hardly a badge of honour when someone spent 5 min researching it and schooled you on it.

Still think low confidence = no confidence when there is also a category of very low confidence? At least you put your tail between your legs for a while, but it seems you've gone back to full dickhead mode.

You do realise that I openly admitted that I'm just trolling headline readers like you, right? I blatantly stated it.

For the record, just so you know that I know what I'm talking about (especially since I just replied to your "confidence" post in the Top8 thread)...I know (unlike you) that there actually is a Guidance Note document from AR5 that deals with these things:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf

You see, I do my research, and I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Here's something that gave me a giggle or two.

Now, HJ being such a super genius and all, what with all his reading of IPCC reports and stuff what no one else ever reads, is obviously above providing sources for his thread bombing.

So in the post you quote above , he posts his little graph, and offers up a little challenge to do some research, and whilst there are ways to find the graph, image search etc. easy enough, that doesn't tell you where he sourced it from.

But hey, meta data is magic stuff! Right click in chrome / inspect element, and here we have the metadata attached to the pasted image, which as we can see, contains the source of where this particular version of the image hosted

<img src="https://scontent.fsyd3-1.fna.fbcdn....5edcd28403e6ff558d3fe7e68bf65&amp;oe=5E903573" class="bbCodeImage LbImage" alt="[&#8203;IMG]" data-url="https://scontent.fsyd3-1.fna.fbcdn....5edcd28403e6ff558d3fe7e68bf65&amp;oe=5E903573" style="">

So what is fbcdn.net?

Here's the link to the image extracted from above......................Linky

Notice the familiar logo on your browser tab?

It aint exactly the IPCC

So many lolz.

Alternatively, I could do a search for the text that accompanies the graph (figure 5.2 annual mean and 5-year running mean sea ice), go to images, find people using it, look for who provides a source and...

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5885458

Ooooh, it's the US precursor to the IPCC....

How's it go..."So many lolz"...

Guess you don't know how to research, Bandy...

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

You do realise that I openly admitted that I'm just trolling headline readers like you, right? I blatantly stated it.

For the record, just so you know that I know what I'm talking about (especially since I just replied to your "confidence" post in the Top8 thread)...I know (unlike you) that there actually is a Guidance Note document from AR5 that deals with these things:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf

You see, I do my research, and I know what I'm talking about.

Just a little excerpt from there..

"Presentation of findings with “low”and “very low” confidence should be reserved for areas of major concern"

But ignore me...I don't know what I'm talking about...I'm just the guy who has actually read the documents...

 

[Gary Gutful]

You do realise that I openly admitted that I'm just trolling headline readers like you, right? I blatantly stated it.

For the record, just so you know that I know what I'm talking about (especially since I just replied to your "confidence" post in the Top8 thread)...I know (unlike you) that there actually is a Guidance Note document from AR5 that deals with these things:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf

You see, I do my research, and I know what I'm talking about.

"Openly trolling". By deliberately f**king things up and making a dick of yourself? Not sure that strategy is working for you.

I quoted the same words on the previous thread to highlight that you f**ked up again by stating that "very low" isn't actually part of the criteria.

Here it is again in the guidance note that you haven't read and don't understand. Page 3.

 

[Gary Gutful]

There is no "very low" criteria. But paying attention to detail was never your strong suit, so I'm not shocked that you got it wrong.

Just a little excerpt from there..

"Presentation of findings with “low”and “very low” confidence should be reserved for areas of major concern"

But ignore me...I don't know what I'm talking about...I'm just the guy who has actually read the documents...

Oh wait, there is a "very low" criteria.

Still doesn't explain how low confidence = no confidence when there is a lower level in very low confidence. Spin it all you like but that was a poor interpretation that reflects a lack of understanding (which Bandy exposed in about 5 min).

But of course, you didn't get it wrong. You are just "trolling" us.

 

[Gronk]

I’m not surprised of this result, as the Republican controlled senate were always going to vote in favour / block motions beneficial to their party. However the result does blemish the concept of democracy. Since when do you hold a trial into anything where witnesses and documents are prevented from being subpoenaed?

I’m trying to understand why this is a legitimate process from the Republican POV, however is smacks of the opposite of a Kangaroo Court, Mob Law.

 

[Gronk]

Not sure what’s happening here but The Australian has posted a contrary view to their normal hoax position on CC. It’s not paywalled for me. The usual Australian reader’s heads are literally exploding. See comments below the article.

 

[emjaycee]

Fact check!

https://www.ambulance.nsw.gov.au/our-services/accounts-and-fees

 

[strider]

I cant believe a helicopter costs the same .... damnit, next time im dying i am requesting a helicopter ride

 

[Bandwagon]

Alternatively, I could do a search for the text that accompanies the graph (figure 5.2 annual mean and 5-year running mean sea ice), go to images, find people using it, look for who provides a source and...

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5885458

Ooooh, it's the US precursor to the IPCC....

How's it go..."So many lolz"...

Guess you don't know how to research, Bandy...

Oooh......... except that the text accompanying the graph is from one of the original graphs before it was merged ( doctored ), and has nothing to do with your source of the merged graphs. Nor indeed were the merged graphs originate.

Any idiot can find a source for either of the two originals, or indeed the merged one. But that won't tell you where the particular example we are dealing with came from.

Which we all now know was that prestigious scientific journal called Facebook.

Because the Metadata doesn't lie mate.

Bad luck mate, you got caught out ( again )

Lolz.