Greta Thunberg

aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
I love how triggered right wingers get over a 16 year old girl talking about the climate. It's funny as hell
Click to expand...

I think we need to act and get a move on doing so but telling billions of children worldwide they’re not going to grow up, which obviously isn’t true, is wrong.
 
I wonder how many people would have been writing on message boards or phoning radio stations when Martin Luther King won it and complaining about ‘backers’, ‘PR Teams’ etc and moaning that this jumped up black bloke is taking away white men’s seats in front of buses

My point is, everyone in the public eye these days has questions about funding and motives put to them as to suggest there is something underhand going on

I think we’ll look back in 50 years and say that she was a remarkable young women. I’d be extremely proud if my daughter could give a speech to the UN at 16.

Good luck to her
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
You don't need to keep putting the word 'adjusted' inside quotes as though there is some impropriety about it, the data is admittedly changed as per their explanations.
Click to expand...

Just seen this. Yes, I do need the quotes. Of course it is claimed the adjustments are all above board, but this is certainly questionable as to whether this is always the case. Were data adjustments made prior to developing a model then that is one thing. Adjusting the data afterwards is entirely different. It's very dubious science to develop a model, find it doesn't fit a particular data set and then look for ways you can justify adjusting the base data.

It smacks of bias or lack of objectivity: "We know we are right so we will adjust the data to support our theory, and we need to find a justification for the adjustments". As opposed to "We're being completely objective and the model doesn't seem to fit the data, so let's try to understand why that might be the case. Might the model be flawed?".
 
woman-63-136-pm-greta-2065-we-only-have-1-month-to-save-the-world-18-li-13-twittea-tu-respuesta-ooo
 
Chippy_boy said:
Just seen this. Yes, I do need the quotes. Of course it is claimed the adjustments are all above board, but this is certainly questionable as to whether this is always the case. Were data adjustments made prior to developing a model then that is one thing. Adjusting the data afterwards is entirely different. It's very dubious science to develop a model, find it doesn't fit a particular data set and then look for ways you can justify adjusting the base data.

It smacks of bias or lack of objectivity: "We know we are right so we will adjust the data to support our theory, and we need to find a justification for the adjustments". As opposed to "We're being completely objective and the model doesn't seem to fit the data, so let's try to understand why that might be the case. Might the model be flawed?".
Click to expand...
The adjustments are made when information comes to light AFTER the model is developed. You cannot report on data you know is incorrect because it is flawed and not reporting actuality so you have to go back and recalculate results with what is known or believed to be correct readings. This is completely normal behaviour in data analysis, everywhere. This is my area of expertise but I accept that people might not understand how this works if they've not worked in this field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.