The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Okey doke. Here's a summation in you own words, with one alteration.

Statistics isn't just for economics.
It's a requirement for undergraduate engineering now, to mention one.
All the Voyager space probe data sent to JPL required statistical analysis.Those people aren't economists.
Scatter-plots are smoothed to enable an observer to discern any trends, like temp as a function of atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration.
Hockey-sticks, 'n such.
PBS Television had a great show on statistics a few years ago, which brought in some of the more sophisticated techniques used to tease data out of otherwise random-looking mayhem.
Kriging, Monte Carlo Simulations, etc..

[oil pan 4]

The hockey stick graph is a proven fraud. So now you resorted to straight up known lies?

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) Who supplies raw data?
2) What would this raw data be?
3) When would people have access to it?
4) Where would they go to get it?
5) How would they interpret it one way or another?
6) Why would they even consider such folly?
7) Raw data has no narrative.
8) Data is just data, it's not even information yet.
9) It only becomes information after statistical analysis.
10 ) That's probably graduate level statistics.
11) Most Americans don't even know arithmetic.

Post 648
1 wherever climate scientists get their raw data. Why does that matter?
1-11 range from repeating the other points to irrelevant, elitist nonsense

[freebeard]

So now you resorted to straight up known lies?

I choose to be more charitable. James Gliek

Originally Posted by aerohead

Statistics isn't just for economics.

To get from [questionable] statistics to truthiness in the real world, you have to detour through economics, and 'the madness of crowds'.

[aerohead]

https://api.nasa.gov/

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The hockey stick graph is a proven fraud. So now you resorted to straight up known lies?



Post 648
1 wherever climate scientists get their raw data. Why does that matter?
1-11 range from repeating the other points to irrelevant, elitist nonsense

A) I'm aware that there's been controversy surrounding the 'hockey-stick', however I'm not aware that it's been proven to be a fraud. A citation would be helpful.
B) Fraud is an extremely serious thing within the scientific community. Since things are examined by a number of independent teams, there would be zero profit in any attempt at deception.
C) You're characterization of my behavior could land you in court. Watch your mouth.
1) I've never seen where a scientist shares raw data with the public. It's only after analysis that anything is published. JPL gets streams of zeros and ones, which must be processed into useable information, using multi-variate statistical analysis, solving simultaneously for half a dozen unknowns which must all 'fit' some model within some prescribed tolerance. I'm certain that the data is available to qualified researchers. What's done with it would be a conversation.
1-11) I'll have to leave this thread an read the source material elsewhere, as you've cut me off from it.
I looked at # 648 ( permalink )
I refuse to look at it. I don't recognize it as a reputable source for information.
Either you know things or you don't. If you can't tell us directly about something without referring to someone else, I've zero confidence that YOU have any command of the information whatsoever.
This is how it's going to work.
Here's some 'data'

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I choose to be more charitable. James Gliek



To get from [questionable] statistics to truthiness in the real world, you have to detour through economics, and 'the madness of crowds'.

Irrational. Illogical. Underinformed. Misinformed.

[freebeard]

C) You're characterization of my behavior could land you in court. Watch your mouth

Should I put on some popcorn?

I looked at # 648 ( permalink )
I refuse to look at it. I don't recognize it as a reputable source for information.

So... which is it?

Either you know things or you don't. If you can't tell us directly about something without referring to someone else, I've zero confidence that YOU have any command of the information whatsoever.
This is how it's going to work.

I don't think you could play on a level field, unless you stop rejecting current peer reviewed research.

You might familiairize yourself about Epistemology. Then get back to us.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Should I put on some popcorn?


So... which is it?



I don't think you could play on a level field, unless you stop rejecting current peer reviewed research.

You might familiairize yourself about Epistemology. Then get back to us.

I'm familiar with climate science. I'll stick with that.
If you have something to share about peer-reviewed science I'm open, but if it isn't from you, out of your own mind, forget it.

[aerohead]

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/about/strat...pabilities/12/I don't expect anyone to read the material, just to recognize that it's a 'thing'.
https://dus.jpl.nasa.gov/

[freebeard]

If you have something to share about peer-reviewed science I'm open, but if it isn't from you, out of your own mind, forget it.

I don't expect anyone to read the material, just to recognize that it's a 'thing'.

One of these posts is not like the other.

"out of your own mind" Try Xist, he has text-to-speech. Everything I say it to 'f' with the Google algorithm. You're just an 0bserver.

Inversion of cosmic microwave background to recover spherical harmonic power, and structural parameters of cosmological models (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and Planck

It does sound interesting, I wish I had the time.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

One of these posts is not like the other.

"out of your own mind" Try Xist, he has text-to-speech. Everything I say it to 'f' with the Google algorithm. You're just an 0bserver.



It does sound interesting, I wish I had the time.

Again, nothing about climate change or science, or science's use of statistics, then 'Try Xist, he has text-to-speech.'
Boggles the mind!