Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

Judged:

1

1

1

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Usually there are half below the average and half above. After all it is an average and research has shown that the IQ test itself leaves much to be desired.
And of course there are plenty of nuts and conspiracy theorist. Your a perfect example of such. Normally they have to have a big scary villian be it a super secret goverment agency with black choppers or Big Oil suppressing the truth. All have to be the work of an intelligent agency be it human or alien and of course it cannot be the work of nature.

Judged:

1

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Depends on the type of average. Median is half above - half below. But a real average of numbers may have one above and 200 below.
If 49 people make $10, 2 people make $11 and 49 more make $1,000,000 the median income is $11. Half above and half below.
The "real" average is $490,005.12

Judged:

1

okboston wrote:

Hey, a four year old can find "errors" in an IPCC report. It is the underlying scientific data that is a little more difficult.
So who cares about someone finding errors in an IPCC report. It is a POLITICAL document.

Judged:

2

2

2

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Given the sample size is in the millions if not the billions it is safe to say that half are above the average and half is below.

Judged:

3

3

3

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Are you feeling unwell?
The IPCC is supposed to be a scientific organisation.
-
"The IPCC's work is solidly based on science"
UK Guardian
"The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature."
Wiki
"The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) will provide an update of knowledge on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change."
IPCC

Judged:

3

3

1

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
While its reports are based on scientific data and findings, it is still subject to political manipulations from the UN members of the IPCC.

Judged:

3

3

3

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
THe IPCC report:
WG1, scientific basis is purely science, backed by the peer reviewed papers in respected journals
WG2, impacts and adaptations is scientific computer modelling as assessment. Less rigorous science but it should be based on expertise and peer reviewed papers in respected journals.
WG3, mitigation is partly science, partly politics. After all, determining the most effective policy is the PURPOSE of understanding the science (WG1), the risks (WG2) and now, what to do about it (WG3).
But if you think that ANY collection of people from 137 countries can have a 'meeting of the minds' over distorting the report to some specific purpose, you have never read the history of international politics.

Judged:

3

3

2

brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:

Peer review is like activist courts; ......they have no business in policy.

Judged:

3

3

3

SpaceBlues wrote:

"I think there is a general confusion about weather versus climate and that weather is what you see out the window on any given hour and climate is the statistical collection or average of weather events," Meehl wrote in an e-mail. "It's that statistical aspect of climate that's sometimes hard to picture. That's why using steroids and baseball as an analogy seems to work for people."[]

Judged:

4

4

4

okboston wrote:

What a load of BS.

Judged:

3

2

1

fifth grade science wrote:

<quoted text>
Co2 and sunlight are fifth grade science project material. Did you sleep through it?
Co2 levels have exploded in the last century along with the industrial revolution. Been asleep again?

Judged:

2

2

2

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
What makes it a "safe" assumption? Sample size is not relevant.

Judged:

2

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:

"I think there is a general confusion about weather versus climate and that weather is what you see out the window on any given hour and climate is the statistical collection or average of weather events," Meehl wrote in an e-mail. "It's that statistical aspect of climate that's sometimes hard to picture. That's why using steroids and baseball as an analogy seems to work for people."
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_19940275...

Judged:

1

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course not. Most alarmist are all for trimming the data set down to something they can twist. But for the idea of a average the more data the better. The the larger the sample size the better the average.
So are you now ready to talk about the cause of climate change.

Judged:

1

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course not. Most alarmist are all for trimming the data set down to something they can twist. But for the idea of a average the more data the better. The the larger the sample size the better the average.
So are you now ready to talk about the cause of climate change.