Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (226483)	4/8/2007 6:25:12 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Comments about any particular glacier melting are in the same class, neolib. Sauce for the goose... Excellent observation. The problem for you is that global warming fits most of the data, whereas you are left looking for anomalies. That is the point you just cannot understand. It is the difference between a legal mind and a scientific mind. An anomaly can get a legal case dismissed. An anomaly cannot dismiss the mean and variance of a vast amount of data. That is the fallacy that most nonscientists fall into. They ignore the mean and variance and find some anomaly on the tail of the distribution, and think this invalidates the other data. LOL! You must understand this difference in order to understand what a scientific theory is doing. It is trying to explain the mean and variance of all the data. Very few (none as far as I know) scientific theories can explain all the anomalies. Hence scientists are always refining theories or testing the boundary cases, looking for new refinements. The anomalies sometimes are very interesting in their own right, they may even result in a new theory replacing the old, but the new theory will still explain the mean and variance as well. It is also why a scientific theory can be quite powerful if it explains a large collection of disparate data, such as climatic models must, while not being able to explain all anomalies. That is why I said I could pick apart ANY global warming basher's article. They never advance any successful counter theories that fit the bulk of other existing data. Instead, they fixate on some anomaly, and think this means their nutcase theory must be right, without bothering to show that the nutcase theory does not explain anything else in the mountain of data.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next