And theyn say numerology died in the i\enlightenment. fu ckin ha
They should read the lumps on their heads.
How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
And theyn say numerology died in the i\enlightenment. fu ckin ha
They should read the lumps on their heads.
perhaps this explains your affinity for your grab-bag collection of those extolling the virtues of your favoured alternate pet theories!
Fixed it for you. You're welcome.
And DB, it's probability not numerology. As in, the probability that you understand why statistics are necessary is astonishingly small. The devil is in the details. No doubt about that!
But you yourself lectured about the power of the small to affect the whole. I am astonishing nevertheless.
There is no but...of course small things can affect the whole. Ignorance can spread, that's a historical fact. I don't think that was ever in doubt Beav.
Last edited:
There is no but...of course small things can affect the whole. Ignorance can spread, that's a historical fact. I don't think that was ever in doubt Beav.
In the case of AGW, the ignorance metric can only be assessed on an after the fact basis.
Considering that 'the debate was over' some time ago, I wouldn't be so fast to make implications of exactly who is being ignorant
No it isn't. The P-value is only as "good" as the variability in your samples allows. Small variability and small sample size can be fine. Now we're coming back around to statistical power, and the conversation about the so-called pause. High variability year to year, and low numbers of samples. Not a "good" p-value.
So what exactly do you say in a board room, if you're not showing them an objective analysis of the data you collected?
That's ignorant. We can clearly assess the things people say, and if they aren't in accord with facts at hand, we don't have to wait until after the fact. With regards to statistics, I don't have to wait to know that Beav is ignorant on the topic of statistics. Numerology places special significance on numbers, derived from religious text, mysticism and superstition. Statistics is probability based, and based on empirical study of populations and the differences between them.
Case closed. Comparing the two is ignorant.
There is no but...of course small things can affect the whole. Ignorance can spread, that's a historical fact. I don't think that was ever in doubt Beav.
But you've been vacinated against that curse and I cannot infect you, yea though I persist.
Small sample size in the case of the Earth's climate experience simply will not cut the mustard.
Add to this the various models that form the basis of what the general equation will look like and the endeavor becomes even more erroneous
You say; 'Based on this model in addition to this set of assumptions....'
No, the comment is reasonable and thoughtful.
'The facts', as you refer to them are presently generating multiple results... Either the equation that 'the facts' are being used in are flawed or 'the facts' are indeed to be questioned.
Hilarious.... That is the exact logic that the truthers have been employing in order to initiate a program of bank transfers to heal Gaia
My ignorance is not in question here I have a proven record of excellence in the field. My testimony here at these proceedings are open to public inquiry.
...we KNOW this body has X value at X extraction cost at X market value.
Never a maybe, could, might, possibly, probably etc...
Add to all that a metric that assesses the range of profitability (or loss) based on variations in the variables
