Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (870592)	7/5/2015 3:17:37 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572877

>> Frankly nodie, I don't think you're qualified to recognize the science and I'm not just busting your chops. The "science" of the global warming argument is more about statistics than it is about other sciences. Now, it is true, I don't know much about tree rings, but it doesn't take much science to recognize that the size of tree rings is affected by things other than temperature and that it is exceedingly difficult, statistically, to establish whether tree rings convey much meaningful information about temperatures at all. While I'm not a statistician, I did have about 20 hours of statistics, most of which was advanced study, so I do know enough about the subject to be conversant. And the statistics of global warming, frankly, are not complicated computationally. The principal difficulty in the subject of global warming is in determining statistically the quality of the proxies. At the end of the day it boils down to what I've said on the subject for years: You cannot establish with any real confidence what the temperature trends were 1000 years ago in many cases, and you certainly can't establish the causes for them. The statistical regressions that have been used boil down to guesswork. You calibrate and verify based on known material, then take a semi-wild-assed-guess as to what happened before. And even the verifications used by Mann, et al., approached ZERO for some series when traditional methods like the Pearson R^2 were used. And then, Mann and his entourage consistently refused or at least resisted so much as disclosing this most important of statistics (Mann even testified before a congressional subcommittee that he didn't calculate the Pearson R2, even though he claimed to have done so in the original paper). There is just a great deal of inconsistency and incompetence that adds up to not being able to believe a thing they say. Don't be confused: There is not that much science in it other than statistics (even Mann ignored a lot of the true science surrounding the collection of various series of temperature data).