|
U-Know! Forum » Climate Scientists Skewered by Statisticians |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Aug 18, 2010, 22:04
|
||
|
The recent inquiries into Climategate criticised climatologists for their failure to use the expertise of professional statisticians. Strange behaviour as their work is essentially statistics. Well, the statisticians have finally woken up & stuck their head above the parapet & apparently vindicated McIntyre & McKitrick's debunking of the various reconstructions. Essentially, they argue that the proxies used contain no statistically valid useful information r.e. temperature: noise gives equally good results. Ouch! Those who have been paying attention knew this already, but finally publications outwith the influence of the Hockey Team have got involved... Here's a peer reviewed paper in the next issue of Annals of Applied Statistics. "A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?". http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf
|
|||
anthonyqkiernan 6775 posts |
Edited Aug 18, 2010, 23:17
Aug 18, 2010, 23:14
|
||
|
DarkMagus wrote: finally woken up & stuck their head above the parapet & apparently vindicated McIntyre & McKitrick Bloody hell. "Fianlly'? As in 1999 when it was published? Give a Google for "hockey stick climate change" it'll fill you in on just how skewed this report was - and how no-one stands by it now. Nice to see you pop up again at this particular point.
|
|||
grufty jim 1770 posts |
Aug 19, 2010, 00:19
|
||
|
I've only read the first quarter of that paper you linked to, DarkMagus, but while it does question the methodology used to reconstruct the historical temperature record, it does not undermine AGW. Indeed it quite explicitly supports the claim that human activity is contributing to an increase in global temperature over the past 150 years, acknowledging: "the temperatures of the last few decades have been relatively warm compared to many of the thousand year temperature curves sampled from the posterior distribution of our model." and accepting that: "carbon dioxide, when released into the atmosphere in sufficient concentration, can force temperature increases." I don't see any "skewering" at all. Merely a disagreement about the interpretation of data gathered prior to direct temperature monitoring. Data they stress constitutes "only one source of evidence in the AGW debate."
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Aug 19, 2010, 16:08
|
||
|
I see, cherry-picking quotes to distort the message. Sounds familiar... I'll not hang around to argue. Life's too short.
|
|||
Squid Tempest 6704 posts |
Aug 19, 2010, 16:18
|
||
|
DarkMagus wrote: I see, cherry-picking quotes to distort the message. Sounds familiar... I'll not hang around to argue. Life's too short. Why bother posting something on a discussion site if you aren't willing to support your arguments? Seems a bit of a waste of time to me!
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1770 posts |
Aug 19, 2010, 16:19
|
||
|
DarkMagus wrote: I see, cherry-picking quotes to distort the message. Sounds familiar... I'll not hang around to argue. Life's too short. The don't hang around. I certainly won't lose any sleep. If I took the quotes out of context, then presumably it would be a simple enough exercise to place them in whatever context it is that you believe "skewers" climate scientists. I took the time to read a (lengthy) paper that you linked to. If you can't take the time to defend it against alleged "cherry-picking" then clearly you don't have much faith in your own position.
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Aug 19, 2010, 17:33
|
||
|
I post so that people can read the paper first hand and make their own minds up. I'd suggest everyone does that rather than base their view on arguments on some forum. For a maths paper it's pretty readable. All I'll say is think long and hard about the meaning of "not statistically significant" (especially when written by professional statisticians) before jumping to agree with people commenting negatively on the paper. I'm not going to bother getting in any arguments here: there are more fulfilling places for that. Strangely, RealClimate has been very quiet. I do find it ironic that on a forum hosted by a heretic, heretical views on climate change are routinely attacked...
|
|||
PMM 2941 posts |
Edited Aug 20, 2010, 00:33
Aug 19, 2010, 18:11
|
||
|
Routinely challenged. Asking you to justify your post is not attacking you. You don't happen to play online backgammon, do you by any chance?
|
|||
|
Squid Tempest 6704 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 09:01
|
||
|
DarkMagus wrote: I post so that people can read the paper first hand and make their own minds up. I'd suggest everyone does that rather than base their view on arguments on some forum. For a maths paper it's pretty readable. All I'll say is think long and hard about the meaning of "not statistically significant" (especially when written by professional statisticians) before jumping to agree with people commenting negatively on the paper. I'm not going to bother getting in any arguments here: there are more fulfilling places for that. Strangely, RealClimate has been very quiet. I do find it ironic that on a forum hosted by a heretic, heretical views on climate change are routinely attacked... Again, if you are "not going to bother getting into any arguments here", what is the point of posting on a discussion forum? I assume that that means you just want to foist your viewpoint on others and expect them to aquiese to your worldview. Either that or you simply want to stir things up.
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Oct 16, 2010, 22:34
|
||
Just linking to information that should be of interest to those concerned by "climate change", or is it "climate disruption" now? Don't expect to hear about it on the BBC or in the Guardian. Sorry if the facts disturb your world view. The science will win in the end. Piltdown man was nothing compared to this...
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
- ©2012ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page