Yeah. I recognize that difference. I, however, have seen little to suggest it is "won't".
Well, I stated very clearly Thau right up front that I was not going to let this degenerate into a thread that no one outside of a specialist can understand. Why? Because those unable to understand the arguments in mathematical form are only going to say, "my side is right" without knowing anything at all about the argument--kind of like your ignorant response to the Morlet wavelet signal extraction. You just thought the pictures were pretty but didn't have a clue what was being said.
Which event is perfect proof to me that you dont' know enough math to actually discuss it in that form, nor have I seen that you understand the most important aspect of any mathematical model of a physical system--that it must actually be relevant and match the facts.
I find this interesting. You claim interest in the science and the hard-nosed assessment of data but then you seem to want to only play to the most base and ignorant and uninformed. Why is that?
So are you a snob? You think that those who are not as smart as you are base, ignorant and uninformed? I think you are uninformed. Until I came around you had never bothered to actually download or look at the raw data. Why you consider yourself so informed is something that escapes me.
And mathematical robustness would somehow
undercut your position?
Utterly attrocious science? Doesn't that mean that one has to understand how science deals with data in order to make that assessment?
YOu know people don't have to have a Ph. D to understand some of the issues. You really are a snob aren't you?
So you want to talk only to the uninformed. The idealogue's favorite audience is one built on ignorance. That way the idealogue can spout whatever they want.
Well I have spent much of this thread speaking with you, so I would say you do have a point there.
I already posted a list of citations showing the fundamental nature of statistic's role in climate. If you want to avoid statistics then I recommend you not talk about climate.
And I have shown that bias is not removed by those processes. You can't know the bias by looking merely at statistics. One has to look at the physical setting to find bias in the measurements.
Yet just about every meteorologist and climatologist and actuary and energy company accountant over the past century has been obsessing over it. But on the other side there's YOU and a couple of others who decree it "not good".
Who should I believe? The century's worth of meteorologists and climatologists and actuaries and energy company accountants? Or you?
You, like most people will believe what you WANT to believe or what brings you the least discomfort. Ask yourself this. Which is easier: to go along with the crowd and have everyone love you, or go against the crowd and put up with the guff from the likes of you and your friends???
I wouldn't put up with it if I didn't firmly believe what I say. As I said, I used to believe GW (Thistle thinks I doubt AGW because I am in oil. That isn't the case. I looked at the data and decided it didn't make sense.)
But you will believe what you want to believe--and your question shows that you think an argumentum ad populum is a valid argument and thus your illogic shows. An argumentum ad populum is the 'everyone knows blah blah blah" argument. It is the argument of sheeple, and it is a informal logical fallacy.
And ironically you never "prove" that mathematically.
If I put out a theorem on general relativity, who here would understand it and be capable of judging it? It would be wasted just like the mathematically based but pictorially shown Morlet wavelet argument was. that one went way over your head and you were reduced to saying the pictures were pretty. Why should I cast pearls before people who cant follow even a simple argument that if 8% of the stations have a 5 degree bias, that that means that the average is changed by .08 x 5 = 0.4 deg? That is very very simple math and you seem not to understand even that. If you can't understand that, why should I waste my time on more complicated stuff?
So lemme get this straight:
At every point here I've shown all my mathematical work and explained and highlighted the results and you just say they are wrong but never show the mathematical error despite having access to the same data and "my friends" are too stupid to understand the information presented?
You have shown mostely irrelevant math. As my parable shows, if the measurements of the chair are perfectly gaussian, it doesn't ensure that the width of the chair has been measured correctly. My gosh I can't believe I am having to actually explain this to you over and over and over.
The morlet waves said something you just put it up there with little in the way of explanation. The guy you cited said global warming wasn't real and you've already said you believe the globe is warming. So what am I to draw from that example?
As I said, you couldn't understand it. Shoot, you can't comprehend that if 8% of the stations have a 5 deg bias that the average is then biased by .4 deg. There really is no reason to expect you to understand any math if you can't understand that mathematical fact.
No, Glenn, you shouldn't believe my "claims" to understand statistics. You SHOULD believe it when I say I'm not statistician but here's my work, show me mathematically where the error is.
But you can't even seem to mount that defense. You dropped the morlet wave thing pretty fast after you posted the link and the picture.
I have over and over told you where your error is. The parable of the chair tells you where the error is. But you insist that statistics is more important than actually getting the physical situation correctly measured. that is why all your math is totally and utterly irrelevant. The problem occurs prior to when statistics is needed. It is the placement of thermometers next to heat sources.
I don't care if you are RONALD FISHER, the fact that you don't ever discuss stats beyond standard deviation or mean in a data discussion says more than 100 publications in statistics you could have.
And you clearly don't understand that a 5 deg bias in 8% of the stations is enough to cause half of the purported global warming. And surveys show that 8% of the stations have that kind of bias.
I'm going to remember that line. If you think science, especially data, is somehow decoupled from math you have spent way too much time as a manager and not enough time as a scientist.
science starts with observation. The observation may or may not be mathematical. I can show that your definition of science is wrong because when a chimp is observed using a stone tool, it is not mathematical, but it is science.
And before you say that they must use statistics to believe it, remember that there are lots of scientific observations that are one-offs.
Why not try doing some science here?
In case you are unaware, criticism of methodology IS part of science. What do they teach in schools these days.
That's rather amazingly insulting. Can you back
that claim up? Or is it another bald assertion like all your other assertions about math on here?
Just like it was "excel's" fault you couldn't differentiate between 100 data points and 30,000 data points on a graph.
I screwed that up. No doubt. I was in a hurry and didn't think about it. I freely acknowledge that. Acknowledging mistakes is also part of science--something that you seem to be incapable of.
So if the
math disagrees with Glenn it's the math's fault. If the chart is in error it's Excel's fault. I see how this works.
No Thau, I think I said that I couldn't get Excel to do a big scatter gram. I haven't tried it again since I re-installed everything, but I never said it was excel's fault. I said I would take responsibility for my error, which I did, which I do. It was my fault. I am not even particularly embarassed by making a mistake. I would be embarassed if I didn't admit it. That is where the real embarassment lies.
That's why my models were crafted specifically to address the point.
Yes Mr. Tensor Calculus, Mr. "I've Got a Big Paycheck", Mr. I-Was-Technology-Director, how may I help you?
First off, you are the one who keeps bringing up the pay check. Are you jealous? Are you bothered? is that what this is all about? You are bitter that life hasn't treated you well?
As to the models, I showed over and over why they didn't fit.
Well, the first thing I learned in physics is, if you make an assertion you should be able to justify it mathematically!
Not so. Have you ever heard of experimental physics? the first thing taught there is make the measurement correctly. Clearly you don't know as much about physics as you think. What did you take, freshman level physics for non-physics majors?