• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Headlines that are misleading

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
44,228
Reaction score
14,409
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just replace those jet aircraft with sailing ships and save the planet. ;)
 
I saw this just now on Yahoo, withe headline

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/8e3...9da8efb266/ss_power-shift:-anything-coal.html
Since they mention batteries, I have to disagree,
It will still be a while yet before a battery pushes a passenger jet across the ocean.
Cheaper in not even the question, the question is, is it even possible.

Notice how they use the 79% lower batter costs since 2000...

They are still not cost effective, and this trend will unlikely continue.
 

[h=1]Easter Island’s “ecological suicide” – myths and realities[/h]The island’s demise was a human and Little Ice Age tragedy, not “ecological suicide” Guest essay Dennis Avery In a recent New York Times column, Nicholas Kristof misleads us about the awful history of Easter Island (2,300 miles west of Chile), whose vegetation disappeared in the cold drought of the Little Ice Age. In doing…
Continue reading →
 

[h=1]Easter Island’s “ecological suicide” – myths and realities[/h]The island’s demise was a human and Little Ice Age tragedy, not “ecological suicide” Guest essay Dennis Avery In a recent New York Times column, Nicholas Kristof misleads us about the awful history of Easter Island (2,300 miles west of Chile), whose vegetation disappeared in the cold drought of the Little Ice Age. In doing…
Continue reading →

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Thanks for another very interesting article! :thumbs: Like many people, I had read about the Easter Island statues in the past, but this is the first time I have ever read a comprehensive history about the land and the people who lived there so long ago, and their way of life in such a remote part of the world!

The video showing how the statues "walked" was fascinating - I actually watched that part several times - :lol: marveling that the creators of the statues had figured out a way to move them forward inches at a time by using ropes attached to opposite sides of the statues with teams of men taking turns pulling the ropes to keep the statues moving, since they didn't have logs to roll them on! Considering that most of these solid stone statues are 35 or more feet high and weigh hundreds of pounds each, I salute their ingenuity! :applaud
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Thanks for another very interesting article! :thumbs: Like many people, I had read about the Easter Island statues in the past, but this is the first time I have ever read a comprehensive history about the land and the people who lived there so long ago, and their way of life in such a remote part of the world!

The video showing how the statues "walked" was fascinating - I actually watched that part several times - :lol: marveling that the creators of the statues had figured out a way to move them forward inches at a time by using ropes attached to opposite sides of the statues with teams of men taking turns pulling the ropes to keep the statues moving, since they didn't have logs to roll them on! Considering that most of these solid stone statues are 35 or more feet high and weigh hundreds of pounds each, I salute their ingenuity! :applaud

Greetings Polgara.:2wave:

Yup, very interesting.
 
Just replace those jet aircraft with sailing ships and save the planet. ;)

Yes, let's turn a 12 hour trip into a 12 day journey in order to accomplish an absolute impossibility... Sounds like a great idea!
 
Here is a good example of misleading headlines.
Before-and-after photos of US cities in the year 2100 - Business Insider
Trump Plaza in Jersey City, New Jersey, could be sitting in water by the year 2100.
and linked to the paper from February,
Climate-change?driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era | PNAS
Which says,
simple extrapolation of the quadratic implies global mean sea level could rise 65 ± 12 cm by 2100 compared with 2005,
A topo map says Trump Plaza is at an elevation of about 16 feet, so the even exaggerated rise of 65 cm (or 2 feet, 1 inch) by 2100,
would not be anywhere near placing water on trump plaza.
The really silly part is that the sea level is actually falling in that area.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
With no sign of the claimed acceleration in rise.
 
And the hits keep coming!
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/884...d7848dd12/ss_disturbing-before-and-after.html
Disturbing before-and-after images show how San Francisco tech companies could be underwater by 2100
Again we have to compare the alarmist projection to the seed article vs the observations.
Yahoo, up to 10 mm /year of subsidence, which has little to do with sea level rise.
Climate central,
And compounding this risk, scientists expect roughly 2 to 7 more feet of sea level rise this century
And lastly what NOAA reports the actual sea level raise has been for the last 80 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414750
Wow the 79 year trend has been .26 feet per century, yet in the next 82 years, they expect
between 2 and 7 feet of rise.
Facebook's Menlo Park, looks to be at least 10 feet above sea level, so even the extreme 7 feet
would not place it underwater.
 
And the hits keep coming!
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/884...d7848dd12/ss_disturbing-before-and-after.html

Again we have to compare the alarmist projection to the seed article vs the observations.
Yahoo, up to 10 mm /year of subsidence, which has little to do with sea level rise.
Climate central,
And lastly what NOAA reports the actual sea level raise has been for the last 80 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414750
Wow the 79 year trend has been .26 feet per century, yet in the next 82 years, they expect
between 2 and 7 feet of rise.
Facebook's Menlo Park, looks to be at least 10 feet above sea level, so even the extreme 7 feet
would not place it underwater.

Have you considered the possibility that predictions for future sea level may be based on more sophisticated methodology than a simple linear extrapolation of past sea level change?
 
Have you considered the possibility that predictions for future sea level may be based on more sophisticated methodology than a simple linear extrapolation of past sea level change?

Have you considered the possibility that there's something rotten in Denmark?
 
And the hits keep coming!
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/884...d7848dd12/ss_disturbing-before-and-after.html

Again we have to compare the alarmist projection to the seed article vs the observations.
Yahoo, up to 10 mm /year of subsidence, which has little to do with sea level rise.
Climate central,
And lastly what NOAA reports the actual sea level raise has been for the last 80 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414750
Wow the 79 year trend has been .26 feet per century, yet in the next 82 years, they expect
between 2 and 7 feet of rise.
Facebook's Menlo Park, looks to be at least 10 feet above sea level, so even the extreme 7 feet
would not place it underwater.

Just remember.\

When building model cars, you can paint them different colors. You don't have to paint them the stock colors.

Climate models usually don't reflect reality either.
 
Have you considered the possibility that predictions for future sea level may be based on more sophisticated methodology than a simple linear extrapolation of past sea level change?

You mean like confirmation bias?
 
Have you considered the possibility that predictions for future sea level may be based on more sophisticated methodology than a simple linear extrapolation of past sea level change?
I have, but while there appears to be a minor correlation between CO2 and the surface troposphere system temperatures,
there is almost zero correlation between CO2 and sea level.
Many of the sea level records are well over a century old, and the most common change in rate is a slowdown.
 
Anomalies vs Temperatures.

Climate data
[h=1]An interesting plot twist – call it an anomaly[/h]We’ve covered this topic before, but it is always good to mention in again. Howard Goodall asks this on Twitter: “Ever wondered why climate scientists use anomalies instead of temperatures? 100 years of catastrophic warming in central England has the answer.” He provides a link to the Central England Temperature data at the Met Office…
 
Anomalies vs Temperatures.

Climate data
[h=1]An interesting plot twist – call it an anomaly[/h]We’ve covered this topic before, but it is always good to mention in again. Howard Goodall asks this on Twitter: “Ever wondered why climate scientists use anomalies instead of temperatures? 100 years of catastrophic warming in central England has the answer.” He provides a link to the Central England Temperature data at the Met Office…

More arrant nonsense from Jack's go-to source of climate disinformation.

If you really want to know why climatologists use anomalies rather than absolute temperatures, NASA explains here:

Q. What are temperature anomalies (and why prefer them to absolute temperatures)?

A. Temperature anomalies indicate how much warmer or colder it is than normal for a particular place and time. For the GISS analysis, normal always means the average over the 30-year period 1951-1980 for that place and time of year. This base period is specific to GISS, not universal. But note that trends do not depend on the choice of the base period: If the absolute temperature at a specific location is 2 degrees higher than a year ago, so is the corresponding temperature anomaly, no matter what base period is selected, since the normal temperature used as base point is the same for both years.

Note that regional mean anomalies (in particular global anomalies) are not computed from the current absolute mean and the 1951-80 mean for that region, but from station temperature anomalies. Finding absolute regional means encounters significant difficulties that create large uncertainties. This is why the GISS analysis deals with anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. For a more detailed discussion of that topic, please see "The Elusive Absolute Temperature"."
 
More arrant nonsense from Jack's go-to source of climate disinformation.

If you really want to know why climatologists use anomalies rather than absolute temperatures, NASA explains here:

Q. What are temperature anomalies (and why prefer them to absolute temperatures)?

A. Temperature anomalies indicate how much warmer or colder it is than normal for a particular place and time. For the GISS analysis, normal always means the average over the 30-year period 1951-1980 for that place and time of year. This base period is specific to GISS, not universal. But note that trends do not depend on the choice of the base period: If the absolute temperature at a specific location is 2 degrees higher than a year ago, so is the corresponding temperature anomaly, no matter what base period is selected, since the normal temperature used as base point is the same for both years.

Note that regional mean anomalies (in particular global anomalies) are not computed from the current absolute mean and the 1951-80 mean for that region, but from station temperature anomalies. Finding absolute regional means encounters significant difficulties that create large uncertainties. This is why the GISS analysis deals with anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. For a more detailed discussion of that topic, please see "The Elusive Absolute Temperature"."

Makes it harder for the alarmists.

 
Makes it harder for the alarmists.


You can also plot annual temperature anomalies using a nonsensical scale for the y-axis, should you wish to. The scale of the y-axis has nothing to do with the use of absolute temperatures or temperature anomalies. That article is seriously stupid, even by Watt's standards!
 
You can also plot annual temperature anomalies using a nonsensical scale for the y-axis, should you wish to. The scale of the y-axis has nothing to do with the use of absolute temperatures or temperature anomalies. That article is seriously stupid, even by Watt's standards!

Keep up the arm waving.
 
[h=1]Another bogus climate claim from the BBC[/h]Posted on 20 Apr 18 by PAUL MATTHEWS 5 Comments
The BBC’s false reporting of climate issues appears to be reaching epidemic proportions. Paul Homewood has a post BBC’s Fake Climate Claims Now Becoming A Habit in which he discusses three examples – sea level rise in Florida, reindeer in Russia, and hurricanes. Then there were the fake news stories from Roger Harrabin on Jan 18th, … Continue reading
 
Back
Top Bottom