3 ms·
> If you have data to back up your points, show the data. If you are making a point which is not supported by the data, don't use slight of hand to make it seem
by frio 9y ago
> If you have data to back up your points, show the data. If you are making a point which is not supported by the data, don't use slight of hand to make it seem like it is.
The New York Times has made the 545 page report available (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum...) and at a passing glance, it contains oodles of data. The article links to it.
- microcolonel 9y ago> The New York Times has made the 545 page report available (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum...) and at a passing glance, it contains oodles of data. The article links to it. Lisa said that mean temperatures rose, then mentioned that President Trump and his cabinet have said that "the human contribution is uncertain", that report (which I have read in its entirety) does not detail any way in which the (degree of) human contribution to climate change is "certain". The document has a helpful rubric for what they would consider "Virtually Certain" or "Extremely Likely" on page 9. I'm just not satisfied with the link between the two clauses in that paragraph. One does not imply the other.
- nl 9y agoThe report says (direct quote): "It is extremely likely that most of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence (high confidence)" Page 13, line 21. That uses the terms defined in the rubric you noted. That's in direct contrast to the cabinet quote ("uncertain").