Topic: It's hard to know who to believe. - page 2. (Read 814 times)

you've been saying something that sounds very like that half a dozen times.

I am glad you have finally conceded the point, will you take back what you said about basic math, seeing as I demonstrated very early on that I know how to calculate both the percentage change and the absolute difference?

You claimed me doing a simple subtraction was actually an inept attempt at calculating the percentage difference, but it's plainly obvious that you were trying to use a tactic to confuse people that couldn't follow the math (which, as you yourself said, is so basic that almost nobody would have been confused)



I'm saying neither, and I have been consistent in doing so


Below, you are agreeing with my argument:


it is the absolute amount as part of a whole causes the problem, from either botulism or CO₂


again (see if you understand this yet):

the change doesn't matter, the amount does. if it's changing, then how much it changes to is what matters

the real question is: is 400ppm CO₂ (i.e. 0.04%) dangerous?

Absolute difference is completely useless without some type of scale of the significance of 1 unit. I'm not arguing that 400 ppm - 300 ppm = 100 ppm is incorrect, but you can either represent that as a 100ppm increase or a 33% increase, not a 0.01% difference which would be 1.0001 x the initial amount. That is the proper representation. Representation of scientific data is a big deal, you are trying to make an argument, but your argument is completely invalid until you begin to represent your data correctly.

If you could represent it the way you intend to, it seems like your argument is that 100ppm is a small number and is therefore insignificant. By that logic I could say 300 ppm is an equally insignificant number, so CO2 plays no role in our atmosphere. We know that isn't the case, it plays some measurable affect on earth's temperature. If 300 played X effect on temperature, its fair to expect that 400 will play 1.33X effect on however CO2 contributes.


0.000000070 Kg of botulism is enough to kill you. The difference between 0.000000070 and 0.000000140 is only 0.000000070.

If I tried representing something the way you have, I'd be fired and laughed out of the scientific community, so its not me playing word games or just being petty about, "you know what I'm saying man". (redundant disclaimer: I'm not involved in climate science) Get your statements in order and then state them. You can't claim anything based on incorrect math.

(I predict a reply "the percentage increase is the only factor, the increase measured as a percentage is the only thing that's changing"
or "no, the difference is 33%")


how are you measuring the percentage change if you keep pretending the absolute difference doesn't exist?


your charge of "can't do basic math" is a joke, in order to hold your position, you're having to avoid using addition and subtraction (the most basic mathematical concepts that even the simplest animals understand) so that you can trick readers into thinking that the absolute difference in 2 measurements does not exist

you're a joke, SaltySpitoon. You literally cannot be serious with this BS.

ok then, the difference is 0.01%


you're making pathetic semantic arguments, really

---

answer the following question:


which is actually the driving factor in the greenhouse effect? is it:

• the percentage change in CO₂
• the proportion of CO₂ of the whole

(anyone will tell you it's the proportion of the atmosphere, the change can be from any starting point. there's a colossal difference between a 1% increase in 99% and a 1% increase in 0.99%)


you're banging on and on about the percentage increase, when it's not even relevant to the greenhouse effect anyway.

the absolute amount is what actually matters, remember, the figure I keep posting, the one you keep disingenuously saying doesn't exist, despite it being a step in the calculations to the irrelevant figure you keep repeating

tl;dr the change doesn't matter, the amount does. if it's changing, then how much it changes to is what matters

Its not your private delusion, I'm sure there are plenty of other kids out there right now having trouble with percents.

I know exactly what you are saying, and I'm just saying that you are wrong. You are mathing poorly and making statements that are untrue. % implies as a fraction. Parts per million in our case. Saying there is an increase of 0.01% means that there is an increase of 1 part per 10,000 of whatever the initial condition is. A 0.01% increase of 3 results in 3.0003. A 0.01% increase of 300 parts per million (0.000300) means you'd have 0.00030003 not 0.000400, which is incorrect.


The increase is 33%. You can say that an increase from 300ppm to 400 ppm is 100ppm over the last 200 years, that is correct. What you are saying is misleading for this purpose. Lets say that instead of 300ppm to 400 ppm we have 300 to 400 ppb so 0.000000300 to 0.000000400. The change is still 33% however you'd be stating it as 0.00001% which dilutes all meaning from the statistic. We have percents to help us recognize the significance of change.

I've pointed you towards more than a few resources at this point. I'm just going to assume you are dense and let anyone else that feels like trying to help you pass your upcoming math quiz contribute. I really wanted you to get that shiny gold star, but I don't have time to help you solve your brain problem if you aren't looking for help. I think you may have better luck with your argument here: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751&page=1
they spent 129 pages arguing how many days there are in a week.

let's try again


atmospheric CO₂ has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 200 years. The increase is 0.01%


It's impossible to argue with that statement, and the math literally proves it.

Yet you continue to pretend that the nominal difference figure does not exist, and that if you keep repeating the percentage change figure over and over again, that the nominal difference is a fantasy?


You're a liar, @SaltySpitoon, you know exactly what I mean and are continuing to play dumb


answer this question without prevarication:

you keep re-stating the percentage change figure. Percentage change of what?

the answer is the percentage change in nominal difference, which you keep pretending is my own private delusion you lying toad

4 is 33% of 12, but 0.0004 is also 33% of 0.0012 I guess? Do I need to show my work, or will you believe me? In case you didn't find the math for dummies book solution to your problem, here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6-0MwmCpE8


My major point in posting in this thread originally was that the difference in knowing who to believe today versus long ago is that today there are an uncountable number of platforms one can get disinformation from people who think they know what they are talking about. This has been a great example.

interesting, do please tell us all again

It is not, you are doing math wrong. https://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+calculate+percent+change

0.0000000000000000000000000003 to 0.0000000000000000000000000004 is a 33% change, as is the case with 0.03 to 0.04 or 0.0003 to 0.0004

What you are doing is incredibly dishonest, as I refuse to believe that even you believe what you are saying. This isn't a case where we are doing a difficult problem and came to two separate answers, you are being deceptive by using incorrect math that again, its blatantly obvious to everyone with a middle school education.

percent implies a change, an initial and final value and what fraction of the initial value must be added to reach a final value. Again, not hard math. You are arguing that the scale of the initial and final numbers matters. Percentages are not additive like whatever you are trying to do.

Please tell me how its deceptive if we do the math correctly? I would expect that 99.99% of people here absolutely understand what I'm saying when I say there has been a 33% increase in CO2 between the time scale we've been discussing assuming a change from 300ppm to 400ppm.

*Edit*

First, lets keep in mind that we haven't talked about a single controversial topic to this point, we haven't talked about global warming at all, just what is a percent. The reason I'm irritated with you, is that our conversation started when I asked you where you were getting your figure from and presented an example with a 15 year chart and data that I snagged online as to why I was confused by your statement. You accused me of being misleading for some reason, and at that point I assumed you were talking about some other metric besides atmospheric concentration so I asked you to elaborate. Instead, you went on a personal attack when I apologized for misunderstanding you about how it was all some ploy to trick you and others. Then come to find out, I wasn't misunderstanding anything, you were just doing (and are still doing) math incorrectly and making incorrect statements. You've accused me of intentionally misleading others when the sole source of confusion is your own lack of understanding of simple mathematics which you can easily look up online to see that I'm correct. I'm being petty about all of this because of the consideration I showed you only to have it thrown back in my face, and its due to the absolute lowest common denominator of misrepresentation.  

yes, let's not.

although it is a little strange that the pair of you are continually saying:

"3 + 1 = 4 is incorrect, 3 + 1 = 33%"




ok. It's not just "according to me", but according to every credible climate scientist



didn't say that
 


all I said was "3 + 1 = 4", to which you 2 both replied "no, it's 33%"


you consistently evaded the point that 33% increase sounds like a large increase, but it's a large increase in a very small number. which is strange behavior for people who think that facts are important, and who purport to be presenting a fact-based argument.

I presented a fact, and you both kept trying to divert away from that fact by manipulating the argument. And yet you apparently agree that the fact I presented is indeed factual.

Fine. Let us not worry about the Maths. Lets look at the logic of the non-alarmist viewpoint you are supporting. I request you to help me understand your viewpoint.

You are essentially saying that in 1880 CO₂ was only 0.03% of atmosphere. In 2019 it is only 0.04%. According to you, this should not be taken very seriously. We can safely wait for it to reach maybe 0.5% or 1% and then we could be concerned. Till then we have all this other 99% of atmosphere which is Not CO₂ and is completely fine and survivable.

This is maybe also the reason you feel that saying "An increase of 300 PPM to 400 PPM is a 33% increase" is alarmist. Please let me know if i understand this correctly.




 

it's so simple, yet you seem to want to make it complicated

• the year 1800: 0.03% CO₂
• the year 2020: 0.04% CO₂

that's an easy to understand difference of 0.01%. or an increase of 100 parts per million, if you prefer.

I think anyone who followed the math at this point can see who wants to bamboozle, and who's trying to make it easy to understand.


Why would anyone want to make it hard to understand, or start to throw insults around?

Oh My God. Climate researchers always find it hard to clarify that "The Science is settled". Is it going to be Mathematics too now?  It is one thing  believing what I want to believe. It is an entirely different thing proposing Alternate-Mathematics.

If I had 300 Satoshis and I get a 33.33% return everyday.
I'll have an additional (33.33% x 300= 100 Sats) the next day.
Second day total would be 400 Sats.

The percentages wouldn't change if i said that i have 0.000003BTC instead?

I apologize, I didn't account for you not knowing middle school level math. Going from 1 to 2 is a 100% change. Going from 10 to 20 is a 100% change, going from 100 to 200 is a 100% change. The order of magnitude doesn't fundamentally change how percents are calculated, you are missing the step where you divide by the initial value.

[(final - initial)/ initial] x 100

[(4e^-4 - 3e^-4) / 3e^-4 ] x 100.

here you go. https://www.skillsyouneed.com/num/percent-change.html

*edit* Sorry I'm being a jerk at this point but just gonna leave this here

A change of 0.01% would be 300ppm (3x10^-4) * 1.0001  for a total of 300.03ppm or (3.0003x10^-4)
A change of 33.33% would be 300ppm (3x10^-4) * 1.3333 for a total of 399.99ppm or ~ (4x10^-4)

you're hiding the 0.01% component of the calculation in the expression you're using....

4.e^-4 - 3.e^-4 = 0.0001 x 100 = 0.01% (adjustment to a percentage needs to be multiplied by 100)

there's the math you said didn't exist, you d/hid it yourself. it's inconceivable that you can continue to pretend that the absolute change is not 0.01%, and that this (very basic) math is entirely correct


and 33% of what?


a very very small proportion (0.03%, which you have finally conceded, despite stating I was using non-existent math to obtain the difference change in the same figure)


but do keep hand waving, and overcomplicating the issue, by all means

33%, that isn't "scary" it is what it is? If I say we have 3 puppies and now we have 4, thats a 33% increase. If I say we have 300 millionths of a puppy and now we have 400 millionths of a puppy, you might be scared of cloning, but it is what it is. If you are scared of a percent, that means you are scared of a conclusion drawn from that. Its beyond ridiculous to accuse someone a fear mongering because you think they should present the number in a different manner.


The data I found and posted above says theres been an increase of about 8% in the past 15 years, I can keep a straight face and tell you thats about 2% per year on average between the years 2005 and 2019. If thats spooky to you for some reason that sucks I guess? It doesn't mean much to me except that the index of refraction of the atmosphere is changing and the lenses need to be re-angled occasionally to get a proper scan of the earth.

again, you're choosing a more alarming statistic.

Why would you want to make it sound scarier than it really is? you don't need to be any kind of expert to present all the relevant figures that cna be calculated from the raw data, anyone who knows basic mathematics can do it (you seem to be saying the opposite, that only sufficiently esteemed climate researchers are permitted to present simple deductions, that anything you or I would say is inherently invalid, yet we should listen to you and not to me. completely contradicting yourself, in other words)



so, here a simple peasant will clarify, where you choose to make things opaque:


parts per million means "how many parts within 1 million parts", i.e. a proportion of a whole (and no different to a simple percentage figure)

• 300 parts as a percentage of 1 million is: 300 / 1,000,000 * 100 = oh, whaddya know, 0.03%
• 400 parts as a percentage of 1 million is: 400 / 1,000,000 * 100 = oh, whaddya know, 0.04%
• the difference between 0.03% and 0.04% is: 0.04 - 0.03 = no way, it's 0.01
• 0.01 as a percentage of 0.03 is, as you say: 0.01 / 0.03 * 100 = 33%

I amply illustrate above that there are 2 relevant ways of measuring change in CO₂, absolute change (100 parts per million, equivalent to 0.01%), or the percentage rate of change (the proportion of 100 parts per million of increase in relation to a 300 parts per million baseline)


it's impossible to calculate the rate of change at all (which you are saying is the only statistic which you permit to exist) without first calculating the absolute difference.

yet when I say "the absolute difference is 0.01%", you can keep a straight face while replying "don't know what kind of math you're using"

---

tl;dr you're saying my math doesn't exist, and yet it's impossible to calculate your figure without first doing my supposedly non-existent math

@SalySpitoon your argument is cherry picking, manipulative nonsense. and anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics can see it plainly

I don't think we are saying the same things..You are not looking at the Carbon credits scheme as a solution to incentivize emission-reduction. Although we agree on this, yet you also need to view it without the lens of " all polluters are powerful, evil industries". It is a global issue that required coordination between countries too. Why should a country like India or Nigeria accept the same levels of reduction as the historic polluters? (Even though India has stupidly done this since 2014 and have seen the economy struggle since then).

Viewing it all as an economic conspiracy cannot make the real problem go away. I keep asking, What is the solution on your side of the belief for the problem??


The love of "Us vs Authority" is also visible in the way a large section of early bitcoin supporters no longer see eye to eye with the Core Devs.  This is also something that was so visible at the forum with Newbies and the Older members. A lot of the loud-mouths just do it to spite authority.
Ohh and "Google effect" like you said in the last post.. There was a time before the internet revolution when forming an opinion on a matter needed in-depth study, a few library visits or at least, having read a few books on topic. Today, I can comment on Banking, Climate change, Artificial Intelligence, Pop culture, Music..All at the same time..

Earlier we all agreed on what each one of us knew. Now it often becomes a competition on who first googled the slam-dunk argument...lol..It can lend a very disrupting tone to discussion at times.

I'm not sure what type of math you are doing, but an increase from 300 parts per million, parts per billion, parts per trillion to 400 parts per million etc is a 33% increase. I'm not really interested in talking with you because you are immediately on the attack about nonsense alarmist or whatever. An 8% increase over a 15 year period when compared against similar periods means that something is putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Its not possible that these rapid increases over short periods of time have happened in the past, otherwise the natural cycles that the earth has gone through would have been far more rapid. We see changes occur over a 20 year span that happened without human action over 300 million years. That tends to point to human action being related. We figured out what happened over those 300 million years as a result, and we conclude the same thing will occur again at a much faster rate.

So what does that mean for humanity? I don't know nor do I care, I just know that you need to factor in the change each year when you are scanning the earth otherwise your images get a little blurry.

*edit* We are actually off track here, so I'll just close with an on topic conclusion. The people who are actually capable of interpreting data and coming to useful conclusions are completely isolated for those that aren't. People who google some info to become experts and find third party information from someone making incorrect assumptions or doing a half ass job are louder than those that are quietly plugging away at problems with their colleagues. As a result, the people who debate topics like these are the ignorant and the ignorant. I don't know enough about the matter of CO2 to be working on it to tell you point by point where you have made errors in your assumptions. As a result, if I try, you can pick apart points that I make due to my own lack of knowledge. We can't trust the teams that have a combined 300 years of research on the matter, because they are the paid off corrupt authorities, so I guess we go back to listening to idiots with blogs. You can call it throwing in the towel if it'd make you feel better, but I'm going to call it preventing perpetuating incorrect information exchange.

increases in the proportion of other atmospheric gases also affect parts per million measurements of any other atmospheric gas


I also don't understand why you want to talk about an issue on which all sides agree

---

instead of presenting easily misinterpreted statistics, why not use a simple criteria using the same type of measurement:


CO₂ as a proportion of the atmosphere increased from 300 parts per million pre-industry to 400 parts per million in 2020. Which is a 0.01% increase, if you're using parts per million.

how strange, that's the exact figure I posted to begin with, so specifying the units as a proportion of the whole instead of a proportion without stating the measurement unit makes essentially no difference.


Unless you're trying to find a number that is as high as possible, to support the alarmist view, which you appear to be doing.

Why stop with 8% percentage change in the change of absolute percentage change? You could have used the figure for the rate at which the rate has increased since C19th, the most alarming figure possible!!! What would it be, 400% increase in the rate of change, maybe? At least then casual observers might wonder how on earth that's possible, until they sat back and thought about what the statistic really means.

And sitting back and thinking "what does an 8% increase in the percentage proportion really mean?" is exactly what any responsible person will do. And an irresponsible one will casually throw that statistic into a conversation that's about a completely different measure.