Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices 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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

gamesmistress

TideGlider

To: Alighieri who wrote (916391)	1/22/2016 11:58:56 AM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) of 1576615

I will say that statistics are at least as important as the data in these studies. The deep rooted problem with the MBH98/99 papers were almost purely statistical in nature. Simple things like making extrapolations with tree ring data that created statistical bias. Like buggy software, which when provided a dataset in which ANY principal component from the PCA created a "hockey stick graph", ALL principal components would. Like refusing to consider traditional Pearson correlation statistics in favor of the so-called RoE ("Reduction of Error") statistic, which is pretty much like is sounds. These are not signs of mistakes. They are ignorant blunders. The same total nonsense has been applied to vast swaths of material in each of the IPCC reports, with the last one being laughable. >> fudging this at the scale you imply would be a conspiracy of "statistically" impossible proportions... "Fudging"? That's what you call this? I really have no interest in rehashing this material with someone who essentially is basing his comments on (a) global warming as a religion, and (b) ad hominem attacks on me. I get the idea you haven't studied this material yourself. I have. If you have, I'd like to know whether you have read the papers of McIntyre and McKitrick? Or Dr. Robert Carter or Lindzen or Lawson? You see, if you haven't read the work of these people, you have only half the story. The data are important, but you have to remember there are only so many tree rings in the dataset and there aren't going to be any more. And all of the data have their own problems and where it gets ugly is when the "adjustments" start happening. Because any fucking thing goes as long as the result supports the religion.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next