The GW scientists spotted a phenomenon,an increase in overall temps,made the decision it was probably of human origin,and have proceeded since then from that perspective.The methodology is tainted.They have decided upon the answer,and now look for evidence of that answer.And now that opposing evidence has come out that contradicts theirs and shows things like the fact of massive warming and cooling shifts throughout history,they cannot bring themselves to admit they may have jumped the gun (or the shark) and will defend to the end their POV and demonize and disparage any other in self defense.The idea that scientists readily give up their version of the truth in the face of new facts is simply false.Scientists throughout history have clung dearly to their version of the facts and attempted to demean others who contradict them.The AGW scientists today are no different.Nobody wants to be shown to have been full of baloney,not even scientists.Especially not scientists who have invested their lives in their pet project.
The GW scientists spotted a phenomenon,an increase in overall temps,made the decision it was probably of human origin,and have proceeded since then from that perspective.The methodology is tainted.They have decided upon the answer,and now look for evidence of that answer.And now that opposing evidence has come out that contradicts theirs and shows things like the fact of massive warming and cooling shifts throughout history,they cannot bring themselves to admit they may have jumped the gun (or the shark) and will defend to the end their POV and demonize and disparage any other in self defense.The idea that scientists readily give up their version of the truth in the face of new facts is simply false.Scientists throughout history have clung dearly to their version of the facts and attempted to demean others who contradict them.The AGW scientists today are no different.Nobody wants to be shown to have been full of baloney,not even scientists.Especially not scientists who have invested their lives in their pet project.
You left out the part about how scientists are all business-hating liberals who want to interfere with the divine right of corporate CEOs to do as they please and so have trumped up AGW and blamed it (for no scientific reason whatever) on industrial carbon emissions.
Really, if you're going to spout the party line do a complete job of it.
This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
The GW scientists spotted a phenomenon,an increase in overall temps,made the decision it was probably of human origin,and have proceeded since then from that perspective.The methodology is tainted.They have decided upon the answer,and now look for evidence of that answer.And now that opposing evidence has come out that contradicts theirs and shows things like the fact of massive warming and cooling shifts throughout history,they cannot bring themselves to admit they may have jumped the gun (or the shark) and will defend to the end their POV and demonize and disparage any other in self defense.The idea that scientists readily give up their version of the truth in the face of new facts is simply false.Scientists throughout history have clung dearly to their version of the facts and attempted to demean others who contradict them.The AGW scientists today are no different.Nobody wants to be shown to have been full of baloney,not even scientists.Especially not scientists who have invested their lives in their pet project.
You left out the part about how scientists are all business-hating liberals who want to interfere with the divine right of corporate CEOs to do as they please and so have trumped up AGW and blamed it (for no scientific reason whatever) on industrial carbon emissions.
Really, if you're going to spout the party line do a complete job of it.
The reason I didn't do a "complete job" of it is that I wasn't spouting any party line.Really,do you find it difficult to believe that someone can come to their own conclusions without towing any party line?How easy it must be for you to use this excuse to dismiss those who don't think like you.Lazy,but easy.
I haven’t been able to find any peer-reviewed study that derives that conclusion from empirical evidence.
Heya mindis!
In your case, the problem is that you're not too familiar with the practise of statistics and empirical studies in general. You always ask for tight waterproof logic that you only find in mathematics.
Why don’t you explain for dummies like me how you arrive at the conclusion that the AGW hypothesis is true?
Obviously if one does not deduce from the evidence that the AGW hypothesis is true, then one must derive some probability that it is true, a conclusion by the inductive method. I think it is perfectly acceptable to advocate conclusions that are derived inductively. One should always provide the confidence interval for all inductive conclusions. One is going to have to do the math either way.
If you know of some kind of “non-waterproof” logic that should be used in the scientific method to derive conclusions, then please inform me of these developments.
One can make deductive arguments premised on empirical facts by which one deduces the atomic composition of the sun. If the AGW hypothesis requires some different realm of logic, then what is it?
Unless, of course, the paper in question supports one of your various vegan stances - then, all of a sudden, different standards apply...
I assume that comment is just a personal swipe; you have nothing of substance to complain about anything I’ve argued. Right?
Empirical science is by its very nature non-waterproof.
I will not again walk you through a beginners' course in statistics, or philosophy of science.
When it comes to AGW evidence, you interpret the inherently probabilistic nature of empirical results to mean "there is no unequivocal evidence for AGW". When it comes to your various vegan studies, you interpret the same inherently probabilistic nature of empirical results to mean "there is unequivocal evidence against meat consumption".
It took more than a week, both times we actually dialogued, yet to no avail.
Empirical science is by its very nature non-waterproof.
I will not again walk you through a beginners' course in statistics, or philosophy of science.
And yet ... you've still refused to comment on the recent study in the Journal of Energy and Environment that shows that the alledged upward trend in 20th century temperatures is "statistically" ... not different from ZERO! [Is there something in this beginners course for statistics that nullifies this basic statistical rule ... or is that reseved for the advanced courses?]
From any kind of Scientific perspective ... that means that one cannot even conclude that temperatures have even warmed since 1880, let alone quantify it. So how is it that others in the literature throw out numbers like .... we've warmed by 0.8C?
Empirical science is by its very nature non-waterproof.
I will not again walk you through a beginners' course in statistics, or philosophy of science.
And yet ... you've still refused to comment on the recent study in the Journal of Energy and Environment that shows that the alledged upward trend in 20th century temperatures is "statistically" ... not different from ZERO!
Then let me address this now, for your pleasure.
The crucial point, where Mr. Frank changes the deck, is his claim "that an assumption of stationary noise variance in temperature time series cannot be presently justified". The aim of this is to get a variance estimator bypassing the law of large numbers. His suggested data decomposition hides mean trend in the variance part.
I'm quite confident that by consequently following his train of thought, you'd get from the same data record a significant upward trend in noise variance - you know, the "more extreme weather" predictions some have made.
The statistical carpet never is so big as to sweep all incovenient truth under it.
Empirical science is by its very nature non-waterproof.
I will not again walk you through a beginners' course in statistics, or philosophy of science.
And yet ... you've still refused to comment on the recent study in the Journal of Energy and Environment that shows that the alledged upward trend in 20th century temperatures is "statistically" ... not different from ZERO! [Is there something in this beginners course for statistics that nullifies this basic statistical rule ... or is that reseved for the advanced courses?]
From any kind of Scientific perspective ... that means that one cannot even conclude that temperatures have even warmed since 1880, let alone quantify it. So how is it that others in the literature throw out numbers like .... we've warmed by 0.8C?
In meteorology normal is over the last thirty(30) years and average is of all recorded data:
From the web site cited:
Overall, we found that temperatures were above normal across the country, indicating pervasive warming. Specifically:
Average Temperatures Rising
Between 2000 and 2005, the average temperature was above normal at 95% of the locations we studied. Alaska experienced the most warming on average, with Talkeetna reporting average temperatures 4.6° F above normal. Outside of Alaska, weather stations in Colorado, Michigan, Montana, Nevada and Wyoming reported the highest above-normal temperatures for the period.
During the first six months of 2006, the average temperature was above normal at 91% of the locations. The average temperature was at least 3° F above normal in 43% of the locations and at least 5° F above normal in 12 of the locations. Temperatures were particularly warm in Texas and the Great Plains states. The average temperature was nearly 5.9° F above normal, the highest in the country, in Kansas City, Missouri and 5.6° F above normal in Wichita Falls, Texas.
Nights Getting Warmer
Between 2000 and 2005, the average minimum (nighttime low) temperature was above normal at 92% of the locations. The average minimum temperature in Reno, Nevada was 5.2° F above normal, the highest in the United States. Albuquerque, New Mexico recorded average minimum temperatures of more than 3° F above normal.
During the first six months of 2006, the average minimum (nighttime low) temperature was above normal at 87% of the stations. The average minimum temperature was at least 3° F above normal in 28% of the locations and at least 5° F above normal in nine of these locations. Nighttime temperatures were particularly mild on average in the upper Midwest, with temperatures soaring to 6.7° F above normal in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and almost 6° F above normal in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Duluth, Rochester, and St. Cloud, Minnesota.
Days Getting Warmer
Between 2000 and 2005, the average maximum (daytime high) temperature was above normal at 80% of the locations. Alaska experienced the most daytime warming. Locations outside of Alaska experiencing the highest abovenormal average maximum temperatures include Goodland, Kansas; Alamosa and Pueblo, Colorado; Brownsville, Texas; and Rapid City, South Dakota.
During the first six months of 2006, the average maximum temperature was above normal at 87% of the locations. The average maximum temperature was at least 3° F above normal in 39% of the locations and least 5° F above normal in 28 of these locations. Warmer-than normal days hit Texas and the Great Plains
“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
In meteorology normal is over the last thirty(30) years and average is of all recorded data:
AND .. as the Peer Reviewed Study in E&E notes, the "data" that they are using to make these conclusions are so uncertain that you cannot reject the null hypothesis that the earth as warmed at all.
Fod .. that's what the paper says. Peer Reviewed and all.
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
