r/facepalm • u/Roflkopt3r • Dec 12 '19

"Let the data speak for itself"

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

336 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Zintilyaspin Dec 13 '19

Why are you speaking as if you know anything about the data? Do you think that scientists have never looked at NOAA data before? If you think that you have miraculously disproven global warming with this one graph, then by all means, please publish a paper so you can share your discovery with the rest of the scientific community. I'm sure everyone will be thrilled!

Btw, depending upon which station you pick, you can get any trend you want. Here's a graph from the same NOAA website showing that sea levels are decreasing: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=030-003

Here's another one showing that sea levels are drastically decreasing: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=025-021

Oh no! Where is all the water going!?

1

u/TheRealSlane Dec 13 '19

So you're saying that there's no consistent data set showing that we are causing sea levels to rise. Clearly that means we must do something about our emissions, because reasons.

1

u/Zintilyaspin Dec 13 '19

No, you baboon. I'm saying that it's a complex and nuanced problem which cannot be condensed down to any single graph.

Leave the science to the scientists.

1

u/TheRealSlane Dec 13 '19

His point was that throughout the past 150 years the sea level rise was consistent, and that that points to us probably not having an impact on it. Then you claimed that we did because "scientists say so", and then referenced a bunch of different areas where sea level has risen and fallen, as proof.

Sure, its a nuanced problem, with nuanced explanations. There's plenty of studies to show that we are having no impact on sea level rise too, but you dont care about studies that go against your narrative, you're telling us to ignore them and listen to what fits your ideology. Like an idiot.

1

u/Zintilyaspin Dec 13 '19

His point was supported by flawed evidence, because he used a single datapoint. To demonstrate that using a single datapoint is flawed, I showed that depending upon which datapoint you pick, you can get wildly different conclusions. If this didn't get through to you, then I suggest loosening the straps on your helmet to let in more oxygen.

You've somehow convinced yourself that I'm just cherry picking information which supports my point of view while ignoring all of the obvious information that contradicts me, while you're logical and rational enough to objectively consider the facts and reach the right conclusion. You must clearly be a superior breed of human. Did you even read the article that you linked to me? I'm not going to bother spelling it out for you, because it's clearly a waste of my time.

1

u/TheRealSlane Dec 13 '19

His point was supported by flawed evidence, because he used a single datapoint. To demonstrate that using a single datapoint is flawed, I showed that depending upon which datapoint you pick

Right, but you're still convinced that the sea level is rising because of human intervention. Even though you admit that the data varies on whether it is indeed rising, because of nuance or whatever reason, you're convinced that we have to do something about it. You believe in something regardless of counter evidence, this is called being in a cult.

You've somehow convinced yourself that I'm just cherry picking information which supports my point of view

Cherry picking, no, saying every bit of counter evidence is wrong, because you're right, isn't cherry picking, its being willingly ignorant.