Remember me
▼ Content

Preferred word in lieu of "GW Denier"



Page 1 of 212>
Preferred word in lieu of "GW Denier"17-09-2016 05:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You who do not think that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, I have a question for you. What word would you like to be used to represent you? Climate change deniers has a biased tone, and apparently IB doesn't like the word "skeptic." What easily-said word or phrase is better? (Until then, I will use the word skeptic.)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
17-09-2016 12:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
I think you are misunderstand the issue.

There is only one here who denies that the earth's temperature has risen since 1970. Ibedadenier.

There are those, such as me, who do not deny science but I will point out the difficulties and limitations of the data. I will also point out that there is nothing particularly bad in the projections. I am a skeptic.

I will also point out the vast number of deaths happening now due to this bad science.

Edited on 17-09-2016 12:40
17-09-2016 18:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ahh, it seems the issue of naming is more complex than I thought. Thanks. But when referring to all deniers, what is a more "diplomatic" term?
17-09-2016 18:49
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
I would take issue with the term denier unless you can point out what I am supposed to be denying. I see it as the same as liar.

Skeptic is the word you are looking for.

Edited on 17-09-2016 18:50
17-09-2016 18:59
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Your not the classical dictionary definition of skeptic either, a skeptic asks questions of everything.
17-09-2016 19:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
For you, sure, skeptic. But people like IB are not skeptics, and take offense from the term.
17-09-2016 19:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
jwoodward48 wrote:
For you, sure, skeptic. But people like IB are not skeptics, and take offense from the term.


IB takes offence at everything unless you acknowledge that he is source of all knowledge on everything.
17-09-2016 19:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tim the plumber wrote: There is only one here who denies that the earth's temperature has risen since 1970. Ibedadenier.
It appears that I and one other are the only ones who don't claim to have divine knowledge of something we cannot know given our current technology, and that said divine knowledge is nonetheless bestown by denying science and placing unquestioning faith in a WACKY religion.

Tim the plumber wrote: There are those, such as me, who do not deny science but I will point out the difficulties and limitations of the data.

Yup, you're a science denier alright. You won't even discuss it. You'll bash warmizombies over their claims but EVADE science when it comes to how you somehow "know" the tenets of your WACKY religion.

You make my case for me. You call yourself a "skeptic" yet you aren't skeptical in the least of any of your WACKY dogma that runs counter to science. You aren't a skeptic at all. You are a full-fledged climate lemming.

So, how do YOU know the average global temperature has increased to any useful accuracy?

<EVASION to commence in T - 3, ... 2, ...1, ...now>


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-09-2016 19:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Trends. Almost all organizations that track temperature, whether independent or government-funded, show a gradual rise in temperature over the last several decades. The chances of a particular measurement being outside the margin of error are 2.5%, but the chances of the average being outside the margin of error is 2.5% divided by the square root of the number of measurements. The margin of error is 0.05 degrees for recent years, 0.1 degrees for 1900. The measured increase in temperature is agreed by most such organizations to be about 1 degree since 1900. This exceeds the standard deviation of the difference (about 0.11 degrees) by more than ninefold. The Earth is heating up.
Edited on 17-09-2016 19:43
17-09-2016 20:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
jwoodward48 wrote:Trends. Almost all organizations that track temperature, whether independent or government-funded, show a gradual rise in temperature over the last several decades.

You like pretending you speak with the authority of countless, unnamed others, don't you? Once you deny science, you need SOMETHING to give you that feeling of authority. Hey, why not invent some imaginary consensus!

No person or organization has ever computed earth's average global temperature to any useful accuracy. Hence nobody has tracked any such trend, much less everybody.

The idiocy of your science denial remains intact.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-09-2016 20:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
spot wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
For you, sure, skeptic. But people like IB are not skeptics, and take offense from the term.


IB takes offence at everything unless you acknowledge that he is source of all knowledge on everything.


spot is so insecure in his beliefs that he is relegated to speaking in hyperbole of those who point out how he's mistaken.

spot cannot stand the idea that he might ever be mistaken on matters of his profoundly WACKY religious dogma.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-09-2016 21:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Trends. Almost all organizations that track temperature, whether independent or government-funded, show a gradual rise in temperature over the last several decades. The chances of a particular measurement being outside the margin of error are 2.5%, but the chances of the average being outside the margin of error is 2.5% divided by the square root of the number of measurements. The margin of error is 0.05 degrees for recent years, 0.1 degrees for 1900. The measured increase in temperature is agreed by most such organizations to be about 1 degree since 1900. This exceeds the standard deviation of the difference (about 0.11 degrees) by more than ninefold. The Earth is heating up.


Bad math. The problem is the requirements of data used for the input stream in the first place. Statistics is very specific about the requirements of this stream.

First, statistics REQUIRES sampling to be done through selection of data by a random means independent of the data. This means the thermometers MUST be equally spaced. Weighting of data imposes bias on the data itself, even if you weight it for location in space.

Second, data MUST be compared against data not sampled (through the use of the random numbers) to generate a valid margin of error.

Third, the points of measurement along the surface is essentially infinite. The best you can do it space thermometers to some acceptable level of temperature gradient.

Fourth, that gradient has been observed to vary by as much as 20 deg F in a single mile, such as stretching that gradient across a fast moving cold front. This gradient of an infinite number of temperature points between them MUST be factored into the margin of error.

Fifth, air moves. It can move pretty fast. So does the surface of the Earth as the Earth rotates against the source of energy, the sun. This means you MUST measure all readings simultaneously, or the readings don't make any sense at all as an average.

Sixth, all instruments have a known accuracy of calibration. No thermometer is perfect. That too must be factored into the margin of error.

Increasing the number of samples is only useful if the rest of the requirements are met along with it. Whether you use one thermometer in Seattle or a thousand thermometers in Seattle, they tell you nothing about Yakima and very little about Everett.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2016 21:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Ask yourself jwoodward48, These simple errors that are so obvious to two people going under anonymous internet handles. Why are they the only two that can see it? Do they have a point or are they insane?

Does educating them give any benefit, do you see the day when they will say; "Oh I see that's where I went wrong.".
17-09-2016 22:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IB, just read this: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2015/01/21/why-so-many-global-temperature-records

See? Actual data. Not made up.

Into has much better arguments. Yours are just disguised (or not disguised) ad hominems, combined with baseless claims.
17-09-2016 23:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
Bad math. The problem is the requirements of data used for the input stream in the first place. Statistics is very specific about the requirements of this stream.

First, statistics REQUIRES sampling to be done through selection of data by a random means independent of the data. This means the thermometers MUST be equally spaced. Weighting of data imposes bias on the data itself, even if you weight it for location in space.


No, statistics does not require that. First, your second sentence does not follow the first. Random =/= perfectly even. Second, do you have a source for that? I've Googled it, and found nothing on it. I don't think you're right.

Second, data MUST be compared against data not sampled (through the use of the random numbers) to generate a valid margin of error.


I never said how they calculated their margin of error. I don't know. I don't think that the scientists intentionally messed up their science.

Third, the points of measurement along the surface is essentially infinite. The best you can do it space thermometers to some acceptable level of temperature gradient.


Of course we can't measure the temperature exactly. That's why we have margins of error.

Fourth, that gradient has been observed to vary by as much as 20 deg F in a single mile, such as stretching that gradient across a fast moving cold front. This gradient of an infinite number of temperature points between them MUST be factored into the margin of error.


That's the thing: the cold front is fast moving. So perhaps quite a few measurements are not good representatives of their location - but this won't necessarily be the case tomorrow, or even in the next hour. (Also, I was using degrees Celsius for my measurements before. This is science. Let's use metric.)

Fifth, air moves. It can move pretty fast. So does the surface of the Earth as the Earth rotates against the source of energy, the sun. This means you MUST measure all readings simultaneously, or the readings don't make any sense at all as an average.


But I thought that randomly selecting the space and time coordinates of observations would be fine!

Anomaly-measurement (not sure what the technical term is) involves taking the average daily temperature for a specific, small region over thirty years, and then measuring all data by how it varies from that baseline, for that day. (The same temperature would be warmer than average in winter and colder than average in summer.) The overall average change from the overall baseline is the average of all of the individual changes from the individual baselines.

Why do I mention this? Because the change in solar energy is already taken into account.

Sixth, all instruments have a known accuracy of calibration. No thermometer is perfect. That too must be factored into the margin of error.


Naturally, it is. That's probably the first thing they calculated when figuring out the margin of error.

Increasing the number of samples is only useful if the rest of the requirements are met along with it. Whether you use one thermometer in Seattle or a thousand thermometers in Seattle, they tell you nothing about Yakima and very little about Everett.


Not necessarily.

Let's suppose that besides the real, actual thermometers, we have magic thermometers placed wherever our real ones are. These magic thermometers have the magic property that if you take the average of every one of them, the true global temperature is the result.

If you only have one thermometer for the entire world, there's going to be a huge chance of huge error between the real and the magic thermometers. But as you increase the number of thermometers, the average difference between real and magic thermometers will go down. That's the power of big numbers: the chances of every thermometer being warmer than its magic counterpart goes down dramatically as the number of thermometers increases.

If you replace the magic instantaneous thermometers with magic average-over-time thermometers, a similar effect takes place. As the number of thermometers increases, the margin of error decreases.

TL;DR: A million thermometers would measure the Earth better than one, so increasing the number of observations improves the margin of error.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
18-09-2016 01:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Bad math. The problem is the requirements of data used for the input stream in the first place. Statistics is very specific about the requirements of this stream.

First, statistics REQUIRES sampling to be done through selection of data by a random means independent of the data. This means the thermometers MUST be equally spaced. Weighting of data imposes bias on the data itself, even if you weight it for location in space.


No, statistics does not require that. First, your second sentence does not follow the first. Random =/= perfectly even. Second, do you have a source for that? I've Googled it, and found nothing on it. I don't think you're right.

Second, data MUST be compared against data not sampled (through the use of the random numbers) to generate a valid margin of error.


I never said how they calculated their margin of error. I don't know. I don't think that the scientists intentionally messed up their science.

Third, the points of measurement along the surface is essentially infinite. The best you can do it space thermometers to some acceptable level of temperature gradient.


Of course we can't measure the temperature exactly. That's why we have margins of error.

Fourth, that gradient has been observed to vary by as much as 20 deg F in a single mile, such as stretching that gradient across a fast moving cold front. This gradient of an infinite number of temperature points between them MUST be factored into the margin of error.


That's the thing: the cold front is fast moving. So perhaps quite a few measurements are not good representatives of their location - but this won't necessarily be the case tomorrow, or even in the next hour. (Also, I was using degrees Celsius for my measurements before. This is science. Let's use metric.)

Fifth, air moves. It can move pretty fast. So does the surface of the Earth as the Earth rotates against the source of energy, the sun. This means you MUST measure all readings simultaneously, or the readings don't make any sense at all as an average.


But I thought that randomly selecting the space and time coordinates of observations would be fine!

Anomaly-measurement (not sure what the technical term is) involves taking the average daily temperature for a specific, small region over thirty years, and then measuring all data by how it varies from that baseline, for that day. (The same temperature would be warmer than average in winter and colder than average in summer.) The overall average change from the overall baseline is the average of all of the individual changes from the individual baselines.

Why do I mention this? Because the change in solar energy is already taken into account.

Sixth, all instruments have a known accuracy of calibration. No thermometer is perfect. That too must be factored into the margin of error.


Naturally, it is. That's probably the first thing they calculated when figuring out the margin of error.

Increasing the number of samples is only useful if the rest of the requirements are met along with it. Whether you use one thermometer in Seattle or a thousand thermometers in Seattle, they tell you nothing about Yakima and very little about Everett.


Not necessarily.

Let's suppose that besides the real, actual thermometers, we have magic thermometers placed wherever our real ones are. These magic thermometers have the magic property that if you take the average of every one of them, the true global temperature is the result.

If you only have one thermometer for the entire world, there's going to be a huge chance of huge error between the real and the magic thermometers. But as you increase the number of thermometers, the average difference between real and magic thermometers will go down. That's the power of big numbers: the chances of every thermometer being warmer than its magic counterpart goes down dramatically as the number of thermometers increases.

If you replace the magic instantaneous thermometers with magic average-over-time thermometers, a similar effect takes place. As the number of thermometers increases, the margin of error decreases.

TL;DR: A million thermometers would measure the Earth better than one, so increasing the number of observations improves the margin of error.


Since you have cast out the first argument, the other arguments you have made have no meaning. You have introduced bias in the data stream to be analyzed by ignoring the first argument.

Sorry, but this is basic statistics. Until you get past this concept, we can go no further. You are no longer using statistics.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 01:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, just read this: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2015/01/21/why-so-many-global-temperature-records

See? Actual data. Not made up.

Into has much better arguments. Yours are just disguised (or not disguised) ad hominems, combined with baseless claims.


I have already shown you why this source of data is suspect (to say the least). NASA is a government organization, subject to government agenda.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 01:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But it's not. The government cannot influence scientific data. On the one hand, you have scientific integrity. On the other hand, you have the same factors which prevent just anybody from making up results. If the government can get scientists to construct a hoax, why do you even trust science?
18-09-2016 01:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, just read this: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2015/01/21/why-so-many-global-temperature-records

See? Actual data. Not made up.

Into has much better arguments. Yours are just disguised (or not disguised) ad hominems, combined with baseless claims.

There's no raw data at that link.

There's no raw data sufficient to compute an average global temperature to any useful accuracy.


What convinced you that there was anything at that site that wasn't simply dogmatic conclusions targeted at the gullible?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-09-2016 02:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Dogmatic... Conclusions... No data...

Do you actually believe that the scientists made that graph up? The graph with data from several non-US government-funded sources?
18-09-2016 02:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
jwoodward48 wrote:Dogmatic... Conclusions... No data...

You're embarrassed, aren't you? You supplied a link to the holy grail of Global Warming raw data and there's no useable raw data there.

Ouch! Giraldo Rivera anyone?

You apparently don't even know what data is, much less what usable data.

Awkward!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-09-2016 02:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I just figured out why I hate you. You're an armchair psychologist. (Can't claim to be innocent there, but hypocrisy doesn't make me wrong.)

So, share another gem. What makes the non-US government-funded sources unusable? A worldwide conspiracy, perhaps?
18-09-2016 05:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into, there is a DEGREE of inaccuracy introduced by uneven spacing, whether spatial or temporal. But you can't just ignore all data unless it comes from an infinite number of thermometers placed at every point on Earth. Error happens. Some errors can be alliviated, at least partially, by statistics. Keep in mind that statistics isn't a pure math; it deals with real-life data to produce usable results.
18-09-2016 09:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But it's not. The government cannot influence scientific data. On the one hand, you have scientific integrity. On the other hand, you have the same factors which prevent just anybody from making up results. If the government can get scientists to construct a hoax, why do you even trust science?


The government can and does manipulate and even outright manufacture 'scientific' data.

The reason I can trust science and not what the government calls 'science' is because I know what science consists of.

You know also. I and IBDaMann have certainly explained it to you enough times. You just deny that you even heard it.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 10:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I just figured out why I hate you. You're an armchair psychologist. (Can't claim to be innocent there, but hypocrisy doesn't make me wrong.)

So, share another gem. What makes the non-US government-funded sources unusable? A worldwide conspiracy, perhaps?


I just figured out that I'm seriously pissed off at you. Your condescending and mocking manner is getting old FAST.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 10:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into, there is a DEGREE of inaccuracy introduced by uneven spacing, whether spatial or temporal. But you can't just ignore all data unless it comes from an infinite number of thermometers placed at every point on Earth. Error happens. Some errors can be alliviated, at least partially, by statistics. Keep in mind that statistics isn't a pure math; it deals with real-life data to produce usable results.


Statistics is pure math. It has rules just like any other part of math. It uses values from real-life situations just like any other part of math.

I guess you fell asleep in 2nd and 3rd grade, when they started introducing story problems.

You talk about ignoring data. You are ignoring the requirements of statistics. You are also ignoring the all important margin of error and where it comes from.

All I can say is...stay out of Vegas.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 10:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...how long did it take for IB's manner to get old? A few hours? A few weeks?

Wait, no, it didn't. Double standards anyone? I'm only doing tit-for-tat with him.
18-09-2016 10:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
...how long did it take for IB's manner to get old? A few hours? A few weeks?

Tu quoque.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, no, it didn't. Double standards anyone? I'm only doing tit-for-tat with him.

You condescending POS. The only double standard is by YOU. Instead of paying attention to the VERY clear message he is posting, you are only interested in playing tit-for-tat.

You have ignored it all. You insist on denying science to follow your Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 10:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
An accusation of hypocrisy cannot be turned aside by "tu quoque"!

"It is not a fallacy, however, to simply point out that the opponent is being hypocritical."

How is "wanting to play tit-for-tat" a double standard? It is by its very nature entirely fair. I expect you to do X, but if you do Y, than I'll do Y too. If you do X, then I'll do X with you.

I don't give a shit what kind of "clear message" he is giving (one of idiocy IMO), he's been an arsehole. Message doesn't matter. Wrong people are people too; treat people decently regardless of disagreement.

Of course, I'm using tit-for-tat, or eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth, so if you're an arsehole I'll do it back. This is neither justifiable nor is it possible to non-hypocritically attack me for it. It's neutral - neither good or bad. The way you dealt with my first inexusable, unprovoked attack on you was better than what I done with IB, I will admit. You may be the "better person" in terms of resistance-to-joining-in-tit-for-tats. Doesn't make your argument right, though.
18-09-2016 14:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into, there is a DEGREE of inaccuracy introduced by uneven spacing, whether spatial or temporal. But you can't just ignore all data unless it comes from an infinite number of thermometers placed at every point on Earth. Error happens. Some errors can be alliviated, at least partially, by statistics. Keep in mind that statistics isn't a pure math; it deals with real-life data to produce usable results.


Statistics is pure math. It has rules just like any other part of math. It uses values from real-life situations just like any other part of math.

I guess you fell asleep in 2nd and 3rd grade, when they started introducing story problems.

You talk about ignoring data. You are ignoring the requirements of statistics. You are also ignoring the all important margin of error and where it comes from.

All I can say is...stay out of Vegas.


Statistics is not a pure math. Physics is not mathematics. It uses mathematics as a languge and framework.

"Applied mathematicians focus on the real-world uses of mathematics. Engineering, economics, physics, finance, biology, astronomy—all these fields need quantitative techniques to answer questions and solve problems. Pure mathematics, by contrast, is mathematics for its own sake."

That is, applied math answers questions with the data that we have. These questions come from engineering, economics, physics, finance, biology, astronomy, etc., but those fields are not mathematics. Pure math is more rigorous and a bit less relevant to the real world - it still is, but not in an obvious way.

In 2nd grade, they gave me applied mathematical problems (how many apples) along with pure mathematical problems (2*4=?).

However, it appears that you do not understand the pure/applied division of mathematics. (Admittedly, it is a fuzzy line, but it exists.)

Applied mathematics is motivated by the real world. "Pure mathematics is not about applications. It's not about the "real world." It's not about creating faster web browsers, or stronger bridges, or investment banks that are less likely to shatter the world economy."

In fact, read all of this. It describes how research is a "dialogue" (that sounds like consensus!)

Statistics is very much applied mathematics. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. It gets real, flawed data and needs to produce results and answers to our questions. "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER" depends on your definition of meaningful. Our margins of error are quite good - the Earth is warming.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 18-09-2016 14:58
19-09-2016 01:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into, there is a DEGREE of inaccuracy introduced by uneven spacing, whether spatial or temporal. But you can't just ignore all data unless it comes from an infinite number of thermometers placed at every point on Earth. Error happens. Some errors can be alliviated, at least partially, by statistics. Keep in mind that statistics isn't a pure math; it deals with real-life data to produce usable results.


Statistics is pure math. It has rules just like any other part of math. It uses values from real-life situations just like any other part of math.

I guess you fell asleep in 2nd and 3rd grade, when they started introducing story problems.

You talk about ignoring data. You are ignoring the requirements of statistics. You are also ignoring the all important margin of error and where it comes from.

All I can say is...stay out of Vegas.


Statistics is not a pure math.
Statistics is pure math. There are no components of statistics or its rules that exist outside of mathematics.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Physics is not mathematics.
True. None of science is mathematics. It is why science by itself does not have the power of prediction. It must turn to mathematics, which does have that power, for that.
jwoodward48 wrote:
It uses mathematics as a languge and framework.

"Applied mathematicians focus on the real-world uses of mathematics. Engineering, economics, physics, finance, biology, astronomy—all these fields need quantitative techniques to answer questions and solve problems. Pure mathematics, by contrast, is mathematics for its own sake."

That is, applied math answers questions with the data that we have. These questions come from engineering, economics, physics, finance, biology, astronomy, etc., but those fields are not mathematics. Pure math is more rigorous and a bit less relevant to the real world - it still is, but not in an obvious way.

In 2nd grade, they gave me applied mathematical problems (how many apples) along with pure mathematical problems (2*4=?).

However, it appears that you do not understand the pure/applied division of mathematics. (Admittedly, it is a fuzzy line, but it exists.)

Applied mathematics is motivated by the real world. "Pure mathematics is not about applications. It's not about the "real world." It's not about creating faster web browsers, or stronger bridges, or investment banks that are less likely to shatter the world economy."

In fact, read all of this. It describes how research is a "dialogue" (that sounds like consensus!)

Statistics is very much applied mathematics. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. It gets real, flawed data and needs to produce results and answers to our questions. "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER" depends on your definition of meaningful. Our margins of error are quite good - the Earth is warming.

Statistics is pure mathematics. Its rules do not depend on data. The reason it works does not depend on data.

The same is true for probabilities and the definition and generation of random numbers.

The same is true for algebra, calculus, trigonometry, or even what a binomial operator means.

Since you have demonstrated you do not know statistics, and have rejected any discussion of what it is and what it does, making a blind claim that the margin of error is 'good' is bullshit.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 02:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into, there is a DEGREE of inaccuracy introduced by uneven spacing, whether spatial or temporal. But you can't just ignore all data unless it comes from an infinite number of thermometers placed at every point on Earth. Error happens. Some errors can be alliviated, at least partially, by statistics. Keep in mind that statistics isn't a pure math; it deals with real-life data to produce usable results.


Statistics is pure math. It has rules just like any other part of math. It uses values from real-life situations just like any other part of math.

I guess you fell asleep in 2nd and 3rd grade, when they started introducing story problems.

You talk about ignoring data. You are ignoring the requirements of statistics. You are also ignoring the all important margin of error and where it comes from.

All I can say is...stay out of Vegas.


Statistics is not a pure math.
Statistics is pure math. There are no components of statistics or its rules that exist outside of mathematics.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Physics is not mathematics.
True. None of science is mathematics. It is why science by itself does not have the power of prediction. It must turn to mathematics, which does have that power, for that.
jwoodward48 wrote:
It uses mathematics as a languge and framework.

"Applied mathematicians focus on the real-world uses of mathematics. Engineering, economics, physics, finance, biology, astronomy—all these fields need quantitative techniques to answer questions and solve problems. Pure mathematics, by contrast, is mathematics for its own sake."

That is, applied math answers questions with the data that we have. These questions come from engineering, economics, physics, finance, biology, astronomy, etc., but those fields are not mathematics. Pure math is more rigorous and a bit less relevant to the real world - it still is, but not in an obvious way.

In 2nd grade, they gave me applied mathematical problems (how many apples) along with pure mathematical problems (2*4=?).

However, it appears that you do not understand the pure/applied division of mathematics. (Admittedly, it is a fuzzy line, but it exists.)

Applied mathematics is motivated by the real world. "Pure mathematics is not about applications. It's not about the "real world." It's not about creating faster web browsers, or stronger bridges, or investment banks that are less likely to shatter the world economy."

In fact, read all of this. It describes how research is a "dialogue" (that sounds like consensus!)

Statistics is very much applied mathematics. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. It gets real, flawed data and needs to produce results and answers to our questions. "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER" depends on your definition of meaningful. Our margins of error are quite good - the Earth is warming.

Statistics is pure mathematics. Its rules do not depend on data. The reason it works does not depend on data.

The same is true for probabilities and the definition and generation of random numbers.

The same is true for algebra, calculus, trigonometry, or even what a binomial operator means.

Since you have demonstrated you do not know statistics, and have rejected any discussion of what it is and what it does, making a blind claim that the margin of error is 'good' is bullshit.

Wrong again, ITN.

Pure mathematics is concerned with abstract problems and such things as proving and generalising theorems. There are no data involved.

Applied mathematics covers all the mathematical tools that are used to work with and make sense of data. This includes such things as calculus, trigonometry and, indeed, statistics, though some would argue that statistics isn't really part of mathematics at all, but a separate discipline.
19-09-2016 04:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If you'd like to create new terms, Into, that's fine. But pure and applied mathematics already are terms with existing meanings.

It turns out that you're sort of right, in a sense:

"Theoretical statistics is all about justifying mathematically the methods that applied statisticians use. In other words, proving rigorously that the methods of applied statistics are good."

But I am referring to applied statistics:

"Applied statistics is like science without any particular subject matter: how to collect data, make sense of it, quantify error in measurement, and build models to predict future observations."

In applied statistics, you can't just throw out data because it's not continuously measured. It's about "making sense of data." You can't be mathematically snooty about the data - we need a conclusion and a margin of error. Applied statistics, like science, needs useable results, even if the result is a 2C margin of error - just saying "the observations were not randomly placed so statistics will just throw up its hands and give up" will not cut it.
Edited on 19-09-2016 04:10
19-09-2016 19:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If you'd like to create new terms, Into, that's fine. But pure and applied mathematics already are terms with existing meanings.

It turns out that you're sort of right, in a sense:

"Theoretical statistics is all about justifying mathematically the methods that applied statisticians use. In other words, proving rigorously that the methods of applied statistics are good."

But I am referring to applied statistics:

"Applied statistics is like science without any particular subject matter: how to collect data, make sense of it, quantify error in measurement, and build models to predict future observations."

In applied statistics, you can't just throw out data because it's not continuously measured. It's about "making sense of data." You can't be mathematically snooty about the data - we need a conclusion and a margin of error. Applied statistics, like science, needs useable results, even if the result is a 2C margin of error - just saying "the observations were not randomly placed so statistics will just throw up its hands and give up" will not cut it.


You can't separate 'em dude. The rules aren't something you can apply one place and not the other.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 20:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm not separating them. The WORLD is. The scientific world. Don't blame me.

Besides, what rules?
19-09-2016 21:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm not separating them. The WORLD is. The scientific world. Don't blame me.

Besides, what rules?


You ARE separating them, dude. The rules don't change just because you are applying them.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 21:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What rules?! What. Rules. I don't recall any rule in statistics that says that all data must come from evenly-spaced points.
19-09-2016 23:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
" Almost every sample in practice is biased because it is practically impossible to ensure a perfectly random sample."

You are describing selection bias, which exists almost everywhere in greater or smaller amounts. The mere existence of selection bias does not invalidate the data. It merely increases the chances of the data misrepresenting reality. As more and more independent measurements of GW are done, the chances of GW being the result of error decrease. Selection bias is just another source of error, and we have error already. It just means we have to work a bit harder to get a good confidence interval.

Also,

"Statistics is pure mathematics. Its rules do not depend on data. The reason it works does not depend on data."

You just described theoretical statistics!
You understand a kind of statistics, good for you.

But don't call me an idiot for understanding another type. Statistics has ways of dealing with error. Usually, it's known as "get more data." We have more data, ergo we can deal with the error from sampling bias. All data is flawed. You can't throw out any data that doesn't meet your ridiculously impractical and unfounded requirements.
20-09-2016 00:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
What rules?! What. Rules. I don't recall any rule in statistics that says that all data must come from evenly-spaced points.


That is not a rule in statistics.

I suggest you go study probability, the definition and generation of random numbers, and statistics. To don't seem to have a grasp of any of them.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 00:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
" Almost every sample in practice is biased because it is practically impossible to ensure a perfectly random sample."

You are describing selection bias, which exists almost everywhere in greater or smaller amounts. The mere existence of selection bias does not invalidate the data. It merely increases the chances of the data misrepresenting reality. As more and more independent measurements of GW are done, the chances of GW being the result of error decrease. Selection bias is just another source of error, and we have error already. It just means we have to work a bit harder to get a good confidence interval.

You are making this argument because you don't understand probability mathematics and the definition and generation of random numbers. Because you don't understand these things, you don't understand statistics either.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Also,

"Statistics is pure mathematics. Its rules do not depend on data. The reason it works does not depend on data."

You just described theoretical statistics!
You understand a kind of statistics, good for you.

But don't call me an idiot for understanding another type. Statistics has ways of dealing with error. Usually, it's known as "get more data." We have more data, ergo we can deal with the error from sampling bias. All data is flawed. You can't throw out any data that doesn't meet your ridiculously impractical and unfounded requirements.



I will call you an idiot. You can't change the rules just because you're applying them.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Preferred word in lieu of "GW Denier":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Word Smithy3625-04-2019 18:57
'Emergency' is the right word for climate change, Kingston prof says209-03-2019 18:56
How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God1420-11-2017 22:54
Climate denier Myron Ebell as head of EPA?3311-06-2017 21:56
Climate change denier crosses from the dark side7705-06-2017 01:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact