PedalUma
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Petaluma, CA
Hey, anyone have fun with this site? https://tylervigen.com/discover
- Status
Air2air
Member
- Region
- USA
That is fascinating.... thanks for that! Bookmarked.
PedalUma
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Petaluma, CA
Dr. Rick Spinrad on COP26: Climate crisis not a challenge for future, but ‘one we must confront today’
As world leaders, climate activists, and concerned citizens gather in Glasgow for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) offsite link, we collectively face a pivotal moment at the start of this decisive decade of action to tackle the climate crisis. As a member of the United...
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
This correlation is remarkable
tylervigen.com
All womens Masters degrees correlates with Lawyers in Oregon
Can you come up with a causal mechanism?
Air2air
Member
- Region
- USA
View attachment 105409Dr. Rick Spinrad on COP26: Climate crisis not a challenge for future, but ‘one we must confront today’
As world leaders, climate activists, and concerned citizens gather in Glasgow for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) offsite link, we collectively face a pivotal moment at the start of this decisive decade of action to tackle the climate crisis. As a member of the United...www.noaa.gov
Yes PedalUma, your example is exactly how it's done. Notice that the date range is trimmed to 1980, and that you are not shown the prior dates.
This Tornado chart below, also from NOAA, goes back to 1954. However if you truncate it to start in 1980 you get a increasing trendline, matching yours above.
This is where "hide the decline" came from. Virtually every media chart gets this treatment; you remember the old 'hockey stick'.
Last edited:
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
I'm sure your audience knows all about "hurricane fixes" and how dangerous they are.
View attachment 105409Dr. Rick Spinrad on COP26: Climate crisis not a challenge for future, but ‘one we must confront today’
As world leaders, climate activists, and concerned citizens gather in Glasgow for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) offsite link, we collectively face a pivotal moment at the start of this decisive decade of action to tackle the climate crisis. As a member of the United...
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
It's a standard method used to cheat the pubic.
Last edited:
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.
| Decade | Saffir-Simpson Category1 | All 1,2,3,4,5 | Major 3,4,5 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| 1851-1860 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 6 |
| 1861-1870 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 1 |
| 1871-1880 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 7 |
| 1881-1890 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 22 | 5 |
| 1891-1900 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 21 | 8 |
| 1901-1910 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 4 |
| 1911-1920 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 21 | 7 |
| 1921-1930 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 13 | 5 |
| 1931-1940 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 8 |
| 1941-1950 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 24 | 10 |
| 1951-1960 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 17 | 8 |
| 1961-1970 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 6 |
| 1971-1980 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 4 |
| 1981-1990 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 15 | 5 |
| 1991-2000 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 5 |
| 2001-2004 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 3 |
| 1851-2004 | 109 | 72 | 71 | 18 | 3 | 273 | 92 |
| Average Per Decade | 7.1 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 17.7 | 6.0 |
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
....as if that is what's going on
I take the simple approach regarding these things. When 95% or so of the experts on climate science say that it is man made then I go with the odds rather than believe in say Trump's assertion that it's a hoax because last night it was cold outside. Same approach with covid vaccinations. When 90+% of people hospitalized or dying from covid are not vaccinated I tend to think maybe it's a good idea to get vaccinated. If the feds really have come up with a tracking devise small enough to pass through the tip of a hypodermic needle then I guess I'll just have to stop robbing banks and committing acts of domestic terrorism. Seems like a small price to pay.
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
The error you make is to pit expert consensus against politician opinion. Instead you might use evidence of proven group cheating and proven group warfare against anyone straying from the group, in order to gain that consensus.
It might be enlightening for you, to examine how cheating is condoned by the consensus scientists, by checking out the study highly circulated in the press, "Quantifying the Consensus" as they lie and cheat to prove the consensus. I'll help you through it next post.
Last edited:
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
Let's take a look at the study "Quantifying the Consensus" produced to show that world famous headline 97% consensus in the climate science literature.
We can actually see the absurd amount of cheating for ourselves if we only look. It doesn't take a scientist to know it's a lie. You CAN know things about the science without being a scientist. We have seen the lying by the most famous. For the most part they all know about the lying but are part of an activist group takeover that is very very powerful and controls enormous wealth distribution. It gives huge gifts to friends, and destroys opposition careers. So you get an almost perfect fear-based unanimity of cowards in chorus at the trough. It is not science.
Here is the study claim:
After they began their politically motivated stunt, they quickly realized that almost no papers state explicit agreement with the scientific quantified consensus. In truth, less than half of 1% do, according to their own data WHICH YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF in a 2 minute scan of the titles. Right here: https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
So they quickly found out they couldn't produce the expected 97% consensus. They convened a meeting to fix that. Here's the fix: secretly rule out their own definition they said they are using for "AGW" and make it something almost meaningless. Humans contribute. That is not the scientific quantified amount consensus they claim to be finding.
They accidentally left their secret meeting open to public view:
When you go to their data sheet, and you look for such agreement signs, after each title they have two numerals, and the second numeral is for agreement that humans caused over half of recent warming, like IPCC says. Easy to scan some for yourself and after 200 titles in the list scanned, you realize that it's all a lie. You didn't even find one category 1 paper, category 1 means that it explicitly agreed with IPCC type of AGW that humans are mostly the cause, or over half, or over 50% the cause.
Here you can see that a numeral 1 of the two numerals after each title, means they agreed with IPCC, that over half is human-caused. this is what they say they are out to find, but never again mention it.
"Endorsement 1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% "
https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
But if you look at the titles there, you'll be unable to see ANY without diligent searching, forget 97 % of them. You can scan through 2 hundred and not find one. It was all a lie ...and NO CLIMATE SCIENTIST in the propaganda group known as climate science said anything over a world wide hit in headlines that was a lie that they clearly had to know was without doubt a lie.
Anyone can understand that it's ridiculous to think all papers parrot the same thing. Scientists would know immediately that it's a false claim and that they cheated.
Their claimed definition:
Secret meeting to rule out the definition they say they are using:
They ruled out the definition they claim to be using and never again mention that type of endorsement, which is what the the paper and the title says they are to show.
And it's got nothing at all to do with the "breadth of papers". It's got to do with producing the familiar bogus 97% figure headlines when the facts do not support their propaganda.
As well as quietly dropping the required "scientific" quantification element, they kicked out 2/3 of the papers. So actually not based on 11,944 papers. Now look at their data sheet for level 1 endorsement. It's very rare.
To believe that junk is just sad. Go look for yourself for 3 minutes. See their classification given. See the 2 numerals after each title. Look for the second numeral being a "1". Practically non-existent! Just a stupid lie that went worldwide and NOT A SINGLE CONSENSUS SCIENTIST objected to the obviously known lie.
That people give up their own wits and depend on that kind of propaganda, is not a good sign.
We can actually see the absurd amount of cheating for ourselves if we only look. It doesn't take a scientist to know it's a lie. You CAN know things about the science without being a scientist. We have seen the lying by the most famous. For the most part they all know about the lying but are part of an activist group takeover that is very very powerful and controls enormous wealth distribution. It gives huge gifts to friends, and destroys opposition careers. So you get an almost perfect fear-based unanimity of cowards in chorus at the trough. It is not science.
Radware Bot Manager Captcha
iopscience.iop.org
Here is the study claim:
After they began their politically motivated stunt, they quickly realized that almost no papers state explicit agreement with the scientific quantified consensus. In truth, less than half of 1% do, according to their own data WHICH YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF in a 2 minute scan of the titles. Right here: https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
So they quickly found out they couldn't produce the expected 97% consensus. They convened a meeting to fix that. Here's the fix: secretly rule out their own definition they said they are using for "AGW" and make it something almost meaningless. Humans contribute. That is not the scientific quantified amount consensus they claim to be finding.
They accidentally left their secret meeting open to public view:
They secretly ruled out the definition they claim they are using.
When you go to their data sheet, and you look for such agreement signs, after each title they have two numerals, and the second numeral is for agreement that humans caused over half of recent warming, like IPCC says. Easy to scan some for yourself and after 200 titles in the list scanned, you realize that it's all a lie. You didn't even find one category 1 paper, category 1 means that it explicitly agreed with IPCC type of AGW that humans are mostly the cause, or over half, or over 50% the cause.
Here you can see that a numeral 1 of the two numerals after each title, means they agreed with IPCC, that over half is human-caused. this is what they say they are out to find, but never again mention it.
"Endorsement 1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% "
https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
But if you look at the titles there, you'll be unable to see ANY without diligent searching, forget 97 % of them. You can scan through 2 hundred and not find one. It was all a lie ...and NO CLIMATE SCIENTIST in the propaganda group known as climate science said anything over a world wide hit in headlines that was a lie that they clearly had to know was without doubt a lie.
Anyone can understand that it's ridiculous to think all papers parrot the same thing. Scientists would know immediately that it's a false claim and that they cheated.
Their claimed definition:
Secret meeting to rule out the definition they say they are using:
They ruled out the definition they claim to be using and never again mention that type of endorsement, which is what the the paper and the title says they are to show.
And it's got nothing at all to do with the "breadth of papers". It's got to do with producing the familiar bogus 97% figure headlines when the facts do not support their propaganda.
As well as quietly dropping the required "scientific" quantification element, they kicked out 2/3 of the papers. So actually not based on 11,944 papers. Now look at their data sheet for level 1 endorsement. It's very rare.
To believe that junk is just sad. Go look for yourself for 3 minutes. See their classification given. See the 2 numerals after each title. Look for the second numeral being a "1". Practically non-existent! Just a stupid lie that went worldwide and NOT A SINGLE CONSENSUS SCIENTIST objected to the obviously known lie.
That people give up their own wits and depend on that kind of propaganda, is not a good sign.
Last edited:
Air2air
Member
- Region
- USA
I agree, that is the simple approach. Global Warming unraveled for you guys because the rest of us looked past the clickbait and into the science.
Last edited:
Mulezen
Well-Known Member
Air2air
Member
- Region
- USA
PedalUma the scientific method is about looking at the data and drawing an objective conclusion.
It's not about calling names, posting troll pictures and "Reporting" others here.
This is a great forum and I would never threaten and insult others here just for disagreeing with me.
Last edited:
DaveMatthews
Well-Known Member
Why does this not surprise me...
Air2air
Member
- Region
- USA
Mulezen, quoting a left-wing newspaper's opinion piece about a right-wing website does not change the climate data.
The Washington Post's own data on tornado frequency: WaPo link to this chart
Yet this is what they go with:
Extreme Weather has made half of America Look Like Tornado Alley
All the data I've posted has been from NOAA, NASA, EPA, NWS and various universities. You should check those sites for more credible information.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
