Perhaps a better choice of website might be made. Crichton makes the mistake of taking a large error from the range of temperature change offered. The range is chosen as having a 90% (for example) probability of the actual change falling in between the values. Large errors only matter if they mean that zero change is is reasonable. That is, if -0.3 to 0.7 was considered as the possible value of the warming.
Secondly, i would advise that the scales need to be made equivalent to perform a comparison. The variation of the mean is the only relevant part, and these variations are always small. Such graphing is little more that a fool playing with excel. Just because hbar is on the order of 10^-34 does not imply that quantum effects don't exist. Yet if physicists used the same method as Crichton they would think that it was.
Thirdly, when translating academic use into common use great care must be taken to TRANSFORM all phrases. Similar mistakes have been made in the other direction as well, notably with David Hume, when individuals ignore the statement 'to conform to normal use of language'. Clearly better analysis could have been done.
Crichton clearly has not studied statistics, and confuses error bars with ranges.
Finally, the problem of a 1.5 degree warming is not in the average of a city, but rather what it implies for the climate. 1.5 degrees means more heatwave, elsewhere droughts, flooding rains ect. If all climate change meant was a simple taking on of 1.5 degrees, I 'd just move from Los Angeles to San Fran. However, is is the changes to weather patterns that is the real problem.
If one is going to be skeptical, at least make a worthy case. Crichton's can be torn apart easily.
The media is bought off by the pharma company that sells nicotine replacement products and who finance the pro ban movement. Their ads and the resulting bias are a sad commentary on the media. It is unfortunate that we cannot get the truth from the MEDIA in this DEMOCRACY! How many pieces of silver does it take to throw your neighborhood business under a bus?
Shouldn't this story read Obama's Tax increase upon those earning below $200,000 through massive tobacco taxes is meeting resistance? You bet it is! I am growing my own!
The Australian public did not need to disprove Mr Plimer's misinformation. Just about every eminent Australian scientist, with credentials in climate change, did it for them and they were probably the worst scientific reviews for any author I've seen.
Furthermore, Tony Jones on Lateline exposed Plimer's "bait and switch" technique which really did it for me. Plimer feigned to be speaking about global warming when in fact he'd switched to the US, which was not the topic Jones had initiated nor was it relevant. The hapless Plimer eventually asked Mr Jones: "Will you respect me in the morning?" Yep.......I think it's the lead!
In a follow-up to the change in policy, the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar scheduled a discussion in June to decide whether to require law schools to report averaged LSAT scores of applicants who took the test more than once. <a href="http://www.activegamez.com">Play Games</a>
Perhaps a better choice of website might be made. Crichton makes the mistake of taking a large error from the range of temperature change offered. The range is chosen as having a 90% (for example) probability of the actual change falling in between the values. Large errors only matter if they mean that zero change is is reasonable. That is, if -0.3 to 0.7 was considered as the possible value of the warming.
Secondly, i would advise that the scales need to be made equivalent to perform a comparison. The variation of the mean is the only relevant part, and these variations are always small. Such graphing is little more that a fool playing with excel. Just because hbar is on the order of 10^-34 does not imply that quantum effects don't exist. Yet if physicists used the same method as Crichton they would think that it was.
Thirdly, when translating academic use into common use great care must be taken to TRANSFORM all phrases. Similar mistakes have been made in the other direction as well, notably with David Hume, when individuals ignore the statement 'to conform to normal use of language'. Clearly better analysis could have been done.
Crichton clearly has not studied statistics, and confuses error bars with ranges.
Finally, the problem of a 1.5 degree warming is not in the average of a city, but rather what it implies for the climate. 1.5 degrees means more heatwave, elsewhere droughts, flooding rains ect. If all climate change meant was a simple taking on of 1.5 degrees, I 'd just move from Los Angeles to San Fran. However, is is the changes to weather patterns that is the real problem.
If one is going to be skeptical, at least make a worthy case. Crichton's can be torn apart easily.
The media is bought off by the pharma company that sells nicotine replacement products and who finance the pro ban movement. Their ads and the resulting bias are a sad commentary on the media. It is unfortunate that we cannot get the truth from the MEDIA in this DEMOCRACY! How many pieces of silver does it take to throw your neighborhood business under a bus?
Shouldn't this story read Obama's Tax increase upon those earning below $200,000 through massive tobacco taxes is meeting resistance? You bet it is! I am growing my own!
Pages