• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AGW Believer Cherry-Picking

Threegoofs said:
Like I said...you've never been to a conference.
Click to expand...

Is that the only place they document their complete methodology?

Really?

You really, really believe that?
 
Threegoofs said:
You don't know, huh?
Click to expand...

LOL...

No, I'm simply laughing at you.

Can't you read the intent of "you really, really believe that?"

How about showing us some of their complete methodology...
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

No, I'm simply laughing at you.

Can't you read the intent of "you really, really believe that?"

How about showing us some of their complete methodology...
Click to expand...

Of every study ever done?

If you care about methodology, you discuss it with the researchers. It's not sekrit librul plots- it's actually a vigorous topic of discussion at most meetings.

Since you are an autodidact with no exposure to scientists, you obviously wouldn't know this.
 
Threegoofs said:
Of every study ever done?

If you care about methodology, you discuss it with the researchers. It's not sekrit librul plots- it's actually a vigorous topic of discussion at most meetings.

Since you are an autodidact with no exposure to scientists, you obviously wouldn't know this.
Click to expand...

You don't follow what I am getting at. That's OK. It's funny however.

Don't you think there's a reason the American Statistical Association released their statement?
 
Lord of Planar said:
You don't follow what I am getting at. That's OK. It's funny however.

Don't you think there's a reason the American Statistical Association released their statement?
Click to expand...

I follow. You're confusing methodology with statistics.

Yes, the statement was released because statistic interpretation get misused a lot, especially by the lay public and in low grade journals.
 
Threegoofs said:
I follow. You're confusing methodology with statistics.

Yes, the statement was released because statistic interpretation get misused a lot, especially by the lay public and in low grade journals.
Click to expand...
LOL...

The IPCC and papers used to justify such things over use, abuse, and misrepresent with statistics.

My God... You're funny!
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

The IPCC and papers used to justify such things over use, abuse, and misrepresent with statistics.

My God... You're funny!
Click to expand...

LOLwut?

Generally, consensus documents do an excellent job evaluating statistical methods. This paper was written to alert researchers, editors, and especially people (amateurs, like yourself) interpreting studies to be mindful of the meanings of statistical significance especially involving individual study interpretation.

In fact, that's often what reviews and consensus documents like IPCC do best- they highly scrutinize others work.

For those of us who do this for a living, this interpretation is basic stuff.
 
[h=2]On inappropriate use of least squares regression[/h] Posted on March 9, 2016 | 99 comments
by Greg Goodman
Inappropriate use of linear regression can produce spurious and significantly low estimations of the true slope of a linear relationship if both variables have significant measurement error or other perturbing factors. This is precisely the case when attempting to regress modelled or observed radiative flux against surface temperatures in order to estimate sensitivity of the climate system. Continue reading →

99 Comments
Posted in Sensitivity & feedbacks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom