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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (26604)	7/26/2017 1:29:14 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356133

What major where you taking that you signed up for DE? I thought you worked in healthcare?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (26604)	7/26/2017 3:03:03 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 356133

Dyson offers the most clear-headed view of where the science is. Even though he is not a "climate science", he understands the process better than today's scientists. It is a voice only experience can provide. I've often mentioned Feynman because he understood the application of the Scientific Method better than anyone. Dyson, as a friend and contemporary of Feynman, conveys a sense of Feynman's commitment. And Dyson, himself, is no dummy -- having published about as much science as any living person other than perhaps Ben Carson. And a lot of it was before the current "peer review" nonsense, which has trashed science with a poor excuse for being lazy (i.e., the comments were addressed by the people I work with). > >What's important are measurements of CO2 and temperature over time. Everything else is just commentary. Unfortunately, this certainly is important and we do not have either over a meaningful period of time. But the statistical analysis is controlling. You talk often about the correlation between temperature and CO2, but we only have a short period of verifiably accurate measurements of either, and certainly, 1/10th of degrees C cannot be presumed accurate even 100 years ago (and obviously lacked statistically significant coverage and consistency). So, we don't know, for example, whether the correlation between temperature and ppm means anything. Because we don't know what these metrics were 500 years ago. Or 300. Or 800. These are the kinds of time frames you have to have to reach statistical significance. The influence of chance is underestimated by these scientists, unfortunately.