Zimbabwe: American lion killer's extradition being sought

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right
  • Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’
  • But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error
  • Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3oTen21nF


Call me another name now, or simply fall back upon your favorite..."dingus".
Good job!
 
Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right
  • Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’
  • But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error
  • Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3oTen21nF


Call me another name now, or simply fall back upon your favorite..."dingus".
Good job!
That's a dailymail link, ya dingus.
 
That's a dailymail link, ya dingus.
That's nice, I didn't mention the Dailymail.


Wow...they must have simply made everything up...how convenient blissful ignorance is, it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
Sorry, but the piece specifically references NASA.

I cited the Mails's critique, and AC seems to think that he can blithely dismiss the piece which cites NASA and the margin of error.
Hahahaha.
 
Last edited:
Fine, breitbart.

Lol, you forgot Faux News. I understand you're cornered and you know you've lost, but have a little dignity.

That's what happens when you assert listed percentages of probability in a chart ranking years by probability percentages don't actually represent the percentage of probability, followed by silence when asked what they do represent.

For the win. Checkmate. Auf Wiedersehen.
 
Wow...they must have simply made everything up...how convenient blissful ignorance is, it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
Sorry, but the piece specifically references NASA.

I cited the Mails's critique, and AC seems to think that he can blithely dismiss the piece which cites NASA and the margin of error.
Hahahaha.
Sorry, but the piece is misleading and does not represent the findings of NASA, if it did, you'd have cited NASA, ya dingus.
 
Lol, you forgot Faux News. I understand you're cornered and you know you've lost, but have a little dignity.

That's what happens when you assert listed percentages of probability in a chart ranking years by probability percentages don't actually represent the percentage of probability, followed by silence when asked what they do represent.

For the win. Checkmate. Auf Wiedersehen.
So you got that quote from Faux News? That explains it, since it sure as fuck didn't come from NASA.

By the way, NASA concluded unequivocally that 2014 was the hottest year on record, ya dingus.
 
Sorry, but the piece is misleading and does not represent the findings of NASA, if it did, you'd have cited NASA, ya dingus.
Hhahahahahaha
If you were certain of your science, you would not be compelled to call anyone names.
You just can't help it!
Good job!
 
Well to be fair, the Daily Mail is a tabloid and is also known as not the shining beacon of truthful journalism. I read the article and it's still a little questionable. The margin of error was 0.1C which is .18F. One example is where they quote the guy from the Unviersity of Redding saying that "Over the past 15 years we've seen a slower rate of warming," but then in the next paragraph they go on to expound on his quote saying that "15 years isn't a long time at all." It's a kind of "gotcha" journalism.
 
Well to be fair, the Daily Mail is a tabloid and is also known as not the shining beacon of truthful journalism. I read the article and it's still a little questionable. The margin of error was 0.1C which is .18F. One example is where they quote the guy from the Unviersity of Redding saying that "Over the past 15 years we've seen a slower rate of warming," but then in the next paragraph they go on to expound on his quote saying that "15 years isn't a long time at all." It's a kind of "gotcha" journalism.
Fair enough...
It was the easiest google grab that buttressed my point that NASA did indeed cite a margin of error.
AC is seemingly, or purposefully ignorant of this fact
 
Fair enough...
It was the easiest google grab that buttressed my point that NASA did indeed cite a margin of error.
AC is seemingly, or purposefully ignorant of this fact

Yeah I always read the Daily Mail with a grain of salt. They do sometimes have good articles, sometimes they purposefully blow things out of proportion or understate them.
 
Back
Top