3 ms·

I believe Temperature is now a politicized measure, therefore it forever impossible to know it's true value.

by seydor 3y ago

geraneum 3y ago
Does it mean that if my thermometer shows 10C it might be lying because of its political bias? Or did you miss an “/s” and I the sarcasm?
- seydor 3y ago
  it depends whether you re rounding up or down
tasty_freeze 3y ago
that is a useful stance for someone who argues for the status quo. label anything you don't like "fake news" or "fake science" and go on whistling past the graveyard.
- worksonmine 3y ago
  Similarly useful for everyone opposing change. Today everything contradicting ones view of the world is labeled as "anti-[whatever]", "[whatever]-denialism" and "fake news". Everything is so ridiculously polarized that constructive discourse is impossible.
sublinear 3y ago
I agree in the sense that global warming is about the temperature of the oceans, not the atmosphere. The oceans are essentially a very large thermal battery. I immediately know the article is trash the moment they start blaming global warming for how hot or cold it is today rather than broader weather patterns. The upper and lower bounds for temperature at a given time of year are far more dependent on geography. It's trivially easy to see that all this "record breaking" is just recency bias, not global warming.
- EliRivers 3y ago
  It's trivially easy to see that all this "record breaking" is just recency bias, not global warming. This makes no sense. Are they not just comparing numbers? Or do you suggest that when they compare numbers to see which number is bigger, they add a bit to the number from this year because they have a recency bias?
  - sublinear 3y ago
    Data from the past is less accurate and incomplete. That creates a bias for recent data even if the real atmospheric temperatures have not changed. We're forced to treat the data as the source of truth only because it's all we have, but we shouldn't assume the data is perfect. In statistics, picking out individual data points is about as silly as it gets.
    - EliRivers 3y ago
      That's not "recency bias". Rather than "recency bias", I suspect you meant that data from the past is less accurate and less complete, due to measurement technology, measurement techniques and record-keeping.
rolldat777 3y ago
I think this is more insightful, or at least interesting, than replies are giving credit. Sure, you know your temperature from the thermometer at your house, but how do you measure the world's temperature? What is included and excluded in the calculation? Scientific facts don't exist in isolation - they are created in people processes in a political environment. New and existing metrics can be cited or withheld to support an agenda. Anyhow, given this specific case is from a single source, it seems to be at least self-consistent.

I believe Temperature is now a politicized measure, therefore it forever impossible to know it's true value.

by seydor 3y ago

I believe Temperature is now a politicized measure, therefore it forever impossible to know it's true value.

Does it mean that if my thermometer shows 10C it might be lying because of its political bias? Or did you miss an “/s” and I the sarcasm?

seydor 3y ago
it depends whether you re rounding up or down

tasty_freeze 3y ago

that is a useful stance for someone who argues for the status quo. label anything you don't like "fake news" or "fake science" and go on whistling past the graveyard.

worksonmine 3y ago
Similarly useful for everyone opposing change. Today everything contradicting ones view of the world is labeled as "anti-[whatever]", "[whatever]-denialism" and "fake news". Everything is so ridiculously polarized that constructive discourse is impossible.

sublinear 3y ago

I agree in the sense that global warming is about the temperature of the oceans, not the atmosphere. The oceans are essentially a very large thermal battery. I immediately know the article is trash the moment they start blaming global warming for how hot or cold it is today rather than broader weather patterns. The upper and lower bounds for temperature at a given time of year are far more dependent on geography. It's trivially easy to see that all this "record breaking" is just recency bias, not global warming.

EliRivers 3y ago
It's trivially easy to see that all this "record breaking" is just recency bias, not global warming. This makes no sense. Are they not just comparing numbers? Or do you suggest that when they compare numbers to see which number is bigger, they add a bit to the number from this year because they have a recency bias?
- sublinear 3y ago
  Data from the past is less accurate and incomplete. That creates a bias for recent data even if the real atmospheric temperatures have not changed. We're forced to treat the data as the source of truth only because it's all we have, but we shouldn't assume the data is perfect. In statistics, picking out individual data points is about as silly as it gets.
  - EliRivers 3y ago
    That's not "recency bias". Rather than "recency bias", I suspect you meant that data from the past is less accurate and less complete, due to measurement technology, measurement techniques and record-keeping.

rolldat777 3y ago

I think this is more insightful, or at least interesting, than replies are giving credit. Sure, you know your temperature from the thermometer at your house, but how do you measure the world's temperature? What is included and excluded in the calculation? Scientific facts don't exist in isolation - they are created in people processes in a political environment. New and existing metrics can be cited or withheld to support an agenda. Anyhow, given this specific case is from a single source, it seems to be at least self-consistent.