The Holocene Deniers

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't recall saying that the climatologists can't grid the data.

You consistently focus on single/double data sets and have yet to even address any of the points I've made about how gridding will average out the data.

Interesting

And you still haven't answered the questions I asked you about the placement of a thermometer next to the stove which thermometer was supposed to measure the temperature inside your house. Let's make it your thermostat

I addressed the ac question back in POST #585. I told you this a couple times two posts ago.

And since this relates directly to the point at hand it is far more important than whether I will answer an unrelated question that is an oversimplified variant of the current question. Except it lacks the important aspects addressed in the original question.

You dare not answer this. You are a coward when it comes to these questions.

Since I too prefer actual data to your "bare assertions" I pointed you before and I'll point you again to POST #585.

POST #585

Coward. You won't answer these questions. Coward.

Oh jeez. Are you sure you're an adult, Glenn? Because what I've seen on this board is a school yard bully who can't handle it when someone comes on who can actually challenge him.

That's probably why you consistently avoid the statistics in a data discussion.

Now you resort to the silly, juvenile "coward" epithet.

As to your supposed mathematical answer to my question about 8% of the stations being heated, you really didn't use math there. You merely asserted that it wasn't a problem.

Here's the post, I'm getting tired of you ignoring it:

But the fact is, that it will be gridded and averaged with many, many other data points in the area.

I made up a block of 100 data stations. They are measuring a temperature. If I have 100 stations and they are set up to have a mean = 80degF and a standard deviation of 6 and then I take that exact same data set and add 5 degrees to 8% of them (that's 8 stations that have a +5 degree bias) and then I compare the means calculated by these two very similar distributions this is what I get:

ACProb4.JPG

Now the important thing to note is that in this 100 data set sample you cannot statistically differentiate the population with and the populationwithout the added 5deg bias. That's what the little p-value tells you.

AND, further, this is a single-tailed t-test so the bar is set a bit lower to detect a difference! I knew it would add a bias, so I only tested to see if Mean2-Mean1>0!

This is the power of dealing with the data statistically rather than merely trying to interpret the noise as signal.

See the little picture with the dots on it? See the NUMBERS. Those are the result of mathematical calculations.

That is math. Regardless if you understand it or not.

And interestingly enough, it proves my point! Mathematically! (I even circled the important little number in red so you could see that! :)

And again, I appear to be the only one of the two of us who actually does any real math. All you do is graph someone else's data. And when Excel throws you a curve ball and places 100 data points in place of 30,000 you can't even tell the difference until someone points it out to you.

Keep calling me a coward if you like. I'd rather be a coward than mathematically incapable in a numbers-based discussion.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think you don't have a clue about science outside of geology.

Ironic. Indeed considering that despite having all my degrees in geology all of my postdoctoral appointments were in chemistry. And not even geochemistry!

And I cut you some slack yesterday when I told you that your distribution of the temperature differences weren't gaussian as you erroneously claimed.
I love the fact you brought this up. Now, of course if you understood statistics beyond high school level you could easily have proven that statement with exactly two numbers!

One is called a "KSL" or alternately a Shapiro-Wilkes test and the other is the associated p-value!

But note how you didn't even mention those! You made a bare assertion. And if you note the picture of the normal quantile plots I provided are hard to tell because the data looks a lot like it is riding right on the 95% confidence interval around the normal line.

Now, I am under no illusion that you understand any of this, but indeed after I ran the KSL and Shapiro-Wilkes tests I too saw that it was not normally distributed.

But you know the funniest part is I COULD PROVE IT MATHEMATICALLY. Interestingly enough your assertion didn't carry with it ONE SINGLE NUMBER.

And you just proved my point. Just because the idiot brings in a set of measurements that can't match reality doesn't mean that a statistical approach will be valid.
I'll level with you Glenn. It pains me to say this because it sounds so insulting but I'm pretty sure the statistics so far discussed in this thread are way above you. Because you never discuss stats beyond mean and standard deviation and you consistently ignore the difference between standard deviation and the 95% confidence interval on the mean would seem to support my belief. (I am really sorry to say that out loud, Glenn. But it sure is what it looks like after >600 posts here).

You want to bully people into agreeing with your anecdotal data, and any of us who made it past the BS learned long ago that anecdotal don't cut it in real science.

Of course you won't care. YOu are a religious believer in global warming. Your religion is global warming.
No, Glenn. I'm a scientist who understands that this science is a bit more complicated than a high schooler could understand and I try to bring to the table those tools that are most appropriate to it.

I am not claiming I am perfect on this, but I clearly understand more of the statistics underlying the processing of data than you do, so if my choice is "belief in climatology" or belief in a guy who doesn't seem to understand statistics beyond high school level, I think I'll go with the climatologists.

Especially when I can read the same scientific papers you can and I find them compelling.

This isn't religion.

You are too easily impressed. Indeed, you are gullible.
So would I be less gullible if I believed the invective-laced rantings of a guy who doesn't know statistics beyond high school level when he tries to tell me what masses of data say?

Should I just go directly to the local junior high and have them tell me what to think?
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Your problem is that no data will be able to make you doubt. That is a sign of fanatic.

Actually, if you could prove something, anything statistically you would have a point!

I hate to bring this up again and again, but there's a simple little number I've repeated numerous times. It's called a

p-value

Now a p-value is the probability that I will make a TYPE I error in rejecting a null hypothesis. If you can provide any data that can provide me with a p-value that would support your contention I would have a tough time disproving it.

That's why statistics is far more powerful than just one guy's "impression" based on anecdotal data.

Fanatics also don't answer scientific questions put to them, like why should we believe the unbelievable temperature differences between closely spaced towns?

Well Thank God I've addressed just about every single couplet of towns you've brought up so far! I've downloaded the data and I've run the stats !

OVER. And OVER. AND OVER AGAIN!

(I resent you consistently misrepresenting what everyone on here can see for his or herself.)

And you wont answer why we should see a seasonal periodicity. You said you were fascinated by that but you haven't actually addressed it.

Actually what I've seen not just in this data set but in another one there is a wider spread of data seasonally. And indeed I am fascinated. If I had more time I'd try to track that down. I don't know as I would agree that everywhere there's always a consistent bias. But it is fascinating.

Sorry if I'm too much of a scientist for you. I'm not able to answer all the questions. Only fanatics and idealogues offer "all the answers".

That's also why I like that p-value so much!

A real scientist would.

And I have.
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You consistently focus on single/double data sets and have yet to even address any of the points I've made about how gridding will average out the data.

And if the raw data is crap, and doesn't actually measure the temperature, who cares about the gridding?????

I grid data every day for maps. If the measurements are not good, the gridding won't fix it. You are so incredibly naive.

I addressed the ac question back in POST #585. I told you this a couple times two posts ago.

Is post 585 your universal "I addressed it post"? I didn't see anything that made a bit of sense in that post.

Oh jeez. Are you sure you're an adult, Glenn? Because what I've seen on this board is a school yard bully who can't handle it when someone comes on who can actually challenge him.

That's probably why you consistently avoid the statistics in a data discussion.

I have yet to see you answer a simple set of questions, like If you were cooking a turkey for several friends and you put a thermometer into the turkey to measure the temperature. Would you pull out the thermometer stuck into the turkey, and put it on the stove, next to the flame before you read how hot the interior of the turkey is?

You won't answer that because you know where it leads. Intellectual coward!
You are a coward.I will answer any question. You duck and weave with the best of them.

Now you resort to the silly, juvenile "coward" epithet.

It isn't juvenile. People in the military risk getting shot for being a coward.





Here's the post, I'm getting tired of you ignoring it:



See the little picture with the dots on it? See the NUMBERS. Those are the result of mathematical calculations.

And they mean nothing. They are again a play model that don't match reality. You totally ignore that if the methodology isn't good, nothing will fix the data.

That is math. Regardless if you understand it or not.

I love this, you a geologist, who took far less mathematics than I claim that you understand math better than I. What a crock. Did you ever take tensor calculus?



Keep calling me a coward if you like. I'd rather be a coward than mathematically incapable in a numbers-based discussion.

Well you are a coward. You won't answer a simple question of whether or not you would take your child's temperature and then put the thermometer on the stove before reading it for the doctor. What silliness you exhibit. I will answer that question. I won't put that thermometer there on a heat source before reading it for the doctor. You on the other hand avoid this question like the plague.

That shows that you don't care about the data. YOu only care about your political agenda.
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Ironic. Indeed considering that despite having all my degrees in geology all of my postdoctoral appointments were in chemistry. And not even geochemistry!

I love the fact you brought this up. Now, of course if you understood statistics beyond high school level you could easily have proven that statement with exactly two numbers!


Well, I have actually published in statistics and you haven't. What silliness you engage in.

I'll level with you Glenn. It pains me to say this because it sounds so insulting but I'm pretty sure the statistics so far discussed in this thread are way above you. Because you never discuss stats beyond mean and standard deviation and you consistently ignore the difference between standard deviation and the 95% confidence interval on the mean would seem to support my belief. (I am really sorry to say that out loud, Glenn. But it sure is what it looks like after >600 posts here).

I am not interested in having a discussion like you and I had last time where no one but you and I could understand what was said.

Do you think that air conditioners are a fine thing to have next to thermometers????

You say you don't like it but you never let it bother your conclusion which is utterly a belief of yours that Global warming is not to be doubted. YOu are no better than a young-earth creationist who doesn't understand what he is talking about scientifically.

You want to bully people into agreeing with your anecdotal data, and any of us who made it past the BS learned long ago that anecdotal don't cut it in real science.

And you want to bully people into thinking that you are saying something significant about statistics. You aren't. If the measurments are crap, statistics don't matter.But this is way beyond your ability to understand or comprehend.

No, Glenn. I'm a scientist who understands that this science is a bit more complicated than a high schooler could understand and I try to bring to the table those tools that are most appropriate to it.
Well I have probablly risen higher than you on the science career, having been a director of technology (rather than a lab rat) for a large oil company. I will stand on what I have accomplished. I don't see that much on your part.

[I am not claiming I am perfect on this,

I want to utterly laugh at this. Of course you are claiming to be perfect on this.

but I clearly understand more of the statistics underlying the processing of data than you do, so if my choice is "belief in climatology" or belief in a guy who doesn't seem to understand statistics beyond high school level, I think I'll go with the climatologists.
No you don't. You merely are a legend in your own mind. You can't seem to understand that proper statistics depends upon proper methodology. Putting an air conditioner next to a thermometer won't yield the correct temperature. You also don't understand that two close towns shoudl yield almost identical temperatures. They shouldn't have 20 deg F differneces. But that goes way over your head.

Especially when I can read the same scientific papers you can and I find them compelling
.
So why do you find the papers that say that trees grew on the arctic coastlines with melted permafrost not compelling?

This isn't religion.

Of course it is. Religion doesn't pay attention to data. You don't pay attention to data in this area.

So would I be less gullible if I believed the invective-laced rantings of a guy who doesn't know statistics beyond high school level when he tries to tell me what masses of data say?
And how many statistics paper have you been involved in publishing? I have 2. Since I don't know your real name (you hiding behind a pseudonym and all) I can't do a google scholar on you.) What a coward to hide behind a pseudonym.

Should I just go directly to the local junior high and have them tell me what to think?

I think you should enroll in that Jr. Hi.
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Actually, if you could prove something, anything statistically you would have a point!

I hate to bring this up again and again, but there's a simple little number I've repeated numerous times. It's called a

p-value

Now a p-value is the probability that I will make a TYPE I error in rejecting a null hypothesis. If you can provide any data that can provide me with a p-value that would support your contention I would have a tough time disproving it.

And it assumes that first the data is correctly measured. If it isn't a P-value isn't of any value.

Well Thank God I've addressed just about every single couplet of towns you've brought up so far! I've downloaded the data and I've run the stats !

OVER. And OVER. AND OVER AGAIN!

Really? Well you seem to have forgotten to post anything significant.

(I resent you consistently misrepresenting what everyone on here can see for his or herself.)
And you don't think I feel the same? once again, Thau, you are incredibly egotistical--thinking that all the world revolves around you.


Actually what I've seen not just in this data set but in another one there is a wider spread of data seasonally. And indeed I am fascinated. If I had more time I'd try to track that down. I don't know as I would agree that everywhere there's always a consistent bias. But it is fascinating.
And this is an example of data that doesn't change your mind. that is called a religion where data doesn't change one's mind.

Sorry if I'm too much of a scientist for you. I'm not able to answer all the questions. Only fanatics and idealogues offer "all the answers".

That's also why I like that p-value so much!
Thaumaturgy is no scientist. I find no articles by him. What a coward.


If you are a scientist you will have a few publications. Thaumaturgy doesn't appear in google scholar. You are only a scientist in your imagination.

I have published ScienceDirect - Journal of Theoretical Biology : The gene-orientation structure of eukaryotes


and

ScienceDirect - Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference : Global Markov models for eukaryote nucleotide datahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...1575067e943981d6ab85ea48934&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

Time for you to share your statistical publications.

Put up or shut up
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I didn't see anything that made a bit of sense in that post.

Well, I guess now we know all we need to know. Thanks.

It isn't juvenile. People in the military risk getting shot for being a coward.
Oh my.

And they mean nothing. They are again a play model that don't match reality. You totally ignore that if the methodology isn't good, nothing will fix the data.
The fact you can't address the math is of some interest here.

I love this, you a geologist, who took far less mathematics than I claim that you understand math better than I. What a crock. Did you ever take tensor calculus?
I don't care what you took. All I care about is what I see on this thread.

I am not a great mathematician. I've said that about a billion times on this board. Which makes me really scratch my head about what you apparently don't understand. Or you at least avoid it like the plague.

You might have taken tensor calc, I don't know. It hasn't come up on this board. But you have yet to address any stats beyond high school level and that has come up repeatedly. And not just from me...but from the peer reviewed literature that has been sited on this thread.

So please tell me how big your pay check is, how many languages you speak, how many calc classes you took anything but talk about statistics beyond the high school level.

Well you are a coward. You won't answer a simple question of whether or not you would take your child's temperature and then put the thermometer on the stove before reading it for the doctor.
I would love to answer that question, but now you've shown yourself to be, well, such a whiner it would hardly be worthwhile.

I think I've made my point mathematically, Mr. Tensor Calculus.

Anyone on here can check my math if they like. I've put it all out for all to see.

That shows that you don't care about the data. YOu only care about your political agenda.

Uh huh. That's why I'm the only one of the two of us with the guts to test my assumptions statistically.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
[/i][/b]

Well, I have actually published in statistics and you haven't. What silliness you engage in.

I knew you'd trot that one out. But again, I have to wonder why a "published" statistician would avoid talking about statistics. And further why a "published" statistician would have such a weak understanding of the difference between a 95% confidence interval on the mean and a standard deviation. And why a "published" statistician would interestingly avoid any discussion of the t-test and resolving differences in means. And why a "published" statistician would have such a weak grasp of chi squared.

Now I'd be more than happy to think otherwise about you and statistics if you provided me with any evidence to support that contention.

Again, I'm only interested in data. You've provided none to the effect that you have any stats beyond freshman college, maybe only high school.

I am not interested in having a discussion like you and I had last time where no one but you and I could understand what was said.
I don't care who can understand what. Personally I think there's more people on here who can understand real science. And I wonder if that is why you avoid it.

You say you don't like it but you never let it bother your conclusion which is utterly a belief of yours that Global warming is not to be doubted. YOu are no better than a young-earth creationist who doesn't understand what he is talking about scientifically.
Except, I demonstrably DO understand what I'm talking about scientifically.

And I've proven it with my posts.


And you want to bully people into thinking that you are saying something significant about statistics. You aren't.
Prove it. Use statistics.

Well I have probablly risen higher than you on the science career, having been a director of technology (rather than a lab rat) for a large oil company.
Ane here you go with your standard "flogging of your credentials". I've seen plenty of folks high up in the corporate structure who didn't spend more than a short period of time "in the lab". And I've seen brilliant scientists who never entered management.

But do, by all means, tell us all about your paycheck and your big position and how great you are.

Anything but statistics in a discussion about data.


I will stand on what I have accomplished. I don't see that much on your part.
And you won't. I've got nothing to prove about my point that requires anything be known about what my current job is. I'm a scientist. I've got a PhD (I've made it further along than you in academia, apparently).

That's why I post my numbers. They can be checked. And I cop to my errors.

If you need to know what my current position is rather than bother to check the math, then I think we know how much good your "tensor calc" class did you.


I want to utterly laugh at this. Of course you are claiming to be perfect on this.
Actually I'm not. In many, many many posts I've pointed out I might be in error. I always post my work so it can be checked by anyone. But so far all you do is say "it's wrong" but never prove that point.

No you don't. You merely are a legend in your own mind.
Uh huh. Maybe that's why I've confessed repeatedly that I'm not a statistician and why I obsessively show all my work. So it can be checked.

You can't seem to understand that proper statistics depends upon proper methodology.
Ummm, I'm pretty aware of how the statistics works and I'm learning more every day. Actually this "discussion" while not intellectually stimulating from your end has provided me with much more opportunity to learn even more stats! (And for that I thank you.)


You also don't understand that two close towns shoudl yield almost identical temperatures.
This is an interesting conjecture. How do you know this? How close to "identical" is sufficient? 1 degrees difference? 0?

Of course it is. Religion doesn't pay attention to data. You don't pay attention to data in this area.
Oh you are making me laugh right now. Everyone on here can see that this is not a true statement.

The fact that you yourself have quoted my posts in which I've addressed the data proves you wrong.


And how many statistics paper have you been involved in publishing? I have 2. Since I don't know your real name (you hiding behind a pseudonym and all) I can't do a google scholar on you.) What a coward to hide behind a pseudonym.
If you have any questions about my statistics, by all means do the math and run the stats. That's why I've posted all my work.

Easy peasy. You don't need to know me, you don't need to know what I've published. You don't need anything. Unless of course it would be to make a personal statement. Anything but talking about the stats.

I think you should enroll in that Jr. Hi.
Maybe you and I will have 5th period algebra together!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thau the master diversionary, who would rather divert attention from anything but the problems he has, has practiced his craft on my little parable of the measurements of the chair. Thau loves diversion. That is what he started out in this thread doing--and he admitted it on that one.

He now tries to divert everyones attention to a 20 foot measurement reported by the stupid brother-in-law, saying that if that were the case one needs to have negative numbers in the width measurements to have a gaussian distribution. I am certainly not, as some on this list are, so anal retentive as to actually try to analyze a set of 100 measurements when only about 5 of those numbers have been given, nor am I so anal retentive as to waste my time making up a perfectly gaussian set of numbers so as to please a guy who will divert attention from the point of the story anyway.

But, that being said, Let me alter the story so that Mr. Diversion can maybe understand the point. I see no reason why a negative width is any more stupid than a 2 inch width 'measurement' for the chair. So that those afflicted with diversionaryitis can maybe comprehend the point of the story, I will amend the story as below.

Let's say you need to move a large chair through a narrow doorway. The chair, you see is about 3 feet wide but so is the door, this from visual observation. You send your stupid brother-in-law to measure the width of the chair. He has an 8 ft tape-measure. You tell him to make 100 measurements of the chair's width.

He goes off, you do whatever you are doing and then he comes back with a perfectly gaussian set of width measurements. But when you look at the measurements, you see that he has some 6 ft widths, some 1 ft widths as measures of the chair's width. You look some more. Then you see that on a few outlier measurements he has said that the chair is 20 feet wide and others that say the chair is 2 inches wide.

The stupid brother-in-law actually had negative numbers on the list of 100 measurements. You can't believe that the guy is that stupid as to report negative width, yet there they are on the paper.

You are stunned by this. You would expect that he could do a more precise job. You would think that your stupid brother-in-law would know that there is no such thing as negative widths and you can't conceive how in the world he measured such numbers. But even those that are not negative, one would think that all the numbers should be within 1 inch of each other. But your silly brother-in-law has made measurements which diverge by feet--several times the width of the chair. Clearly he was doing something wrong in the measurement.

The measurements which 1 ft or a couple of inches equally are unbelievable measurements. How in the heck can an approximately 3 ft wide chair measure 2 inches wide??? It can't.

You challenge the brother-in-law and say that the measurements are wrong. He goes away mad, saying that all is OK and that you are stupid to doubt the data. The brother-in-law comes back with a chart showing how his measurements are perfectly, and I mean PERFECTLY gaussian. Eveything is OK, he proclaims.

You object that gaussianicity doesn't matter. It is irrelevant because the measurements are

Now the real question is will Mr. Diversionary be capable of understanding the point of the parable--So far the answer is no.

But then, he can't seem to understand that one doesn't put thermometers next to heat sources and expect the correct temperature. He won't admit that there is a problem with the temperature measurement system even when shown that their is a seasonality to the temperature difference between two towns. He then diverted off to the position that hey it all averages out in the long run. And when I showed that it doesn't all average out and that there is seasonality in the temperature difference he diverts off into claiming that I have said that averaging won't get rid of the noise, not realizing that averaging won't get rid of bias. Then he diverts off into claims that I only understand statistics at the high school level, being totally incapable of understanding that I will not be sucked into a discussion in which only two people on the thread would be able to understand. That diversion worked in the last discussion we had on this list a year ago or so. Last night we saw his continued infatuation with trying to throw out statistical nomenclature and it is nothing but another form of diversion from the fact that if the measurements are no good, statistics won't make it good.

I wonder where Mr. Diversion is going to take us now.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well, I guess now we know all we need to know. Thanks.

Oh my.

The fact you can't address the math is of some interest here.

YOu seem incapable of understanding the difference between 'can't' and 'won't'. I learned my lesson well with our last discussion which diverted into all sorts of things that no one understood, save us. My goal here is not to produce math but to give people a reason for not being bullied by AGW advocates, to give them a set of data which they can use to fight the utterly attrocious science. To do that, I must stay within the average person's ability to understand. Statistics doesn't go there. And this isn't a statistical list.

I don't care what you took. All I care about is what I see on this thread.

What you see on this thread is plenty of documentation that the thermometer system is not good.

I am not a great mathematician.

I saw that when in our last discussion you totally mangled the Fourier transform. Everyone I told about your understanding of it laughed and laughed and laughed. I got lots of mileage out of describing your lack of mathematical understanding of that.

I've said that about a billion times on this board. Which makes me really scratch my head about what you apparently don't understand. Or you at least avoid it like the plague.

Avoid? I agree with you. You are no mathematician. And your friends, at least most of them dont' understand enough to know how bad you are or how irrelevant your claims that a good statistical distribution makes a good data set. It doesn't.

You might have taken tensor calc, I don't know. It hasn't come up on this board. But you have yet to address any stats beyond high school level and that has come up repeatedly. And not just from me...but from the peer reviewed literature that has been sited on this thread.


Fourier transforms did. Morlet wavelets did. and all you could say to the latter was 'pretty picture' and yet you think we all should believe your claims to understand statistics.

So please tell me how big your pay check is, how many languages you speak, how many calc classes you took anything but talk about statistics beyond the high school level.

And I take it from this that you haven't actually published any statistical papers, like the ones I have. Interesting. I have over and over said that I am not going to turn this thread into something that the average person can't understand. My purpose is not math education here, but scientific education.

And as to things you avoid. you have not yet answered why you think it is ok for thermometers to be placed next to heat sources.

I would love to answer that question, but now you've shown yourself to be, well, such a whiner it would hardly be worthwhile.

I think I've made my point mathematically, Mr. Tensor Calculus.

Anyone on here can check my math if they like. I've put it all out for all to see.

Oh really? Thistlethorn has the ability to check on your math? He will BELIEVE you but he doesn't have the ability. And once again, correct math doesn't mean that the conclusion reached is good anymore than the correct math in the chair measurement parable means that the guy has done a good job of measuring the width of a chair.


Uh huh. That's why I'm the only one of the two of us with the guts to test my assumptions statistically.

Always with irrelevant models. You seem NOT to understand that the statistical model must match the situation. Mr. Diversion, I have over and over shown that your models don't match the physical case. That is the first thing one learns in physics. If you make a model, it must match reality. Yours don't.
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think I may be getting it. More education doesn't mean one knows what one is talking about. It means that one spends more time displaying the fact he knows not. OK. Thanks for the demo..:)


I love the drive by postings that have zero content other than insults. Is that what the AGW folk have come to? If you can't beat them on the science, beat them down with insults? Interesting approach to science you have there dad.

So Dad, please explain why there is so much variation with the season in the temperature difference between two towns only 16 miles apart. While your insults are not particularly creative, or even interesting, they really are a diversion from the data.
weatherMNMontevideoMilan180dave1968-1975.jpg


Would you care to comment on the data or merely throw out another insult?
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I belive that Dad is on "your" side actually.

I'll also note that the arguments you bring forth are very weak. Climate change is a fact, it may be debated how much humans contribute but that we do contribute and are a factor is already proven. Now, what actions to take may be debated sure but not really the science.
 
Upvote 0

Thistlethorn

Defeated dad.
Aug 13, 2009
785
49
Steering Cabin
✟16,260.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
And Thistle, I contend that if you have more than 2 10+ deg F differences in temperature between two towns less than 16 miles apart, that we should mistrust the measurement. YOu on the other hand ignore it.

Nope. I allow the use of statistics to prepare the data for me. As Thaumathurgy has shown, using statistics you can get around single cases of faulty data. And, that's all you have. Single cases which you bring up again and again and again, like a broken record. All the while, you fail to understand that single cases just doesn't matter in the big picture.

Let me ask you the questions. would you put your thermostat for your heater or air conditioner next to the stove?

Irrelevant question number one. You really do like deflection, don't you, Glen? For the record, this has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion, but just so Glen can't harp on about how I'm a cowardlike he so maturely did to Thauma, no, I wouldn't put it there.

MY political ideas? I am not the one who wants to tax everyone to death by putting taxes on energy. Maybe it is you who have the political agenda.

No, it's you who have a political agenda. You're an oil man. You stand to lose your income, so you argue for purely selfish political reasons. It's despicable, but understandable.

Would you take your child's temperature and put the thermometer on the stove before reading it and telling the doctor what the temperature is? Are you THAT stupid?

No, but apparently you are stupid enough to thing this is relevant. This is irrelevant question number two, by the way.

I don't really give a flip what you think about me. You are the guy who illogically claimed that if one isn't likeable one can't tell the truth. Would you care to explain your logic on this? Why does likeableness indicate truthfulness?

I didn't say that, though. That's your strawman version of my post. Maybe you should re-read the post where I said you where unlikeable? I know you have a problem understanding written text, but that post isn't that complicated.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
YOu seem incapable of understanding the difference between 'can't' and 'won't'.

Yeah. I recognize that difference. I, however, have seen little to suggest it is "won't".

I learned my lesson well with our last discussion which diverted into all sorts of things that no one understood, save us.

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?

My goal here is not to produce math but to give people a reason for not being bullied by AGW advocates

And mathematical robustness would somehow undercut your position? Hmmmm.

, to give them a set of data which they can use to fight the utterly attrocious science.

Utterly attrocious science? Doesn't that mean that one has to understand how science deals with data in order to make that assessment?

To do that, I must stay within the average person's ability to understand.

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.

And that is precisely why statistics comes in very handy.

Otherwise medicine would be run by late-night TV hucksters selling voodoo cures.

Statistics doesn't go there. And this isn't a statistical list.

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.

What you see on this thread is plenty of documentation that the thermometer system is not good.

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?


Avoid? I agree with you. You are no mathematician.

And ironically you never "prove" that mathematically.

^_^

And your friends, at least most of them dont' understand enough to know how bad you are or how irrelevant your claims that a good statistical distribution makes a good data set.

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?

Fourier transforms did. Morlet wavelets did.


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?

and all you could say to the latter was 'pretty picture' and yet you think we all should believe your claims to understand statistics.


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.

And I take it from this that you haven't actually published any statistical papers, like the ones I have. Interesting.

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.

You would do well to just going back and reminding us how big your paycheck is, how high you are in the oil business and how many countries you've lived in, and maybe consider throwing in how large your phallus is.

It would all have as much effect on the data.

I have over and over said that I am not going to turn this thread into something that the average person can't understand. My purpose is not math education here, but scientific education.

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.

You talk a LOT. I mean you talk big. And LOTS of talk. Talk talk talk.

Why not try doing some science here?

Oh really? Thistlethorn has the ability to check on your math? He will BELIEVE you but he doesn't have the ability.

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?

And once again, correct math doesn't mean that the conclusion reached is good anymore than the correct math in the chair measurement parable means that the guy has done a good job of measuring the width of a chair.

Just like it was "excel's" fault you couldn't differentiate between 100 data points and 30,000 data points on a graph.

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. :thumbsup:

Always with irrelevant models. You seem NOT to understand that the statistical model must match the situation.

That's why my models were crafted specifically to address the point.

Mr. Diversion

Yes Mr. Tensor Calculus, Mr. "I've Got a Big Paycheck", Mr. I-Was-Technology-Director, how may I help you?

, I have over and over shown that your models don't match the physical case. That is the first thing one learns in physics. If you make a model, it must match reality. Yours don't.

Well, the first thing I learned in physics is, if you make an assertion you should be able to justify it mathematically!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gracchus
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I belive that Dad is on "your" side actually.

I'll also note that the arguments you bring forth are very weak. Climate change is a fact, it may be debated how much humans contribute but that we do contribute and are a factor is already proven. Now, what actions to take may be debated sure but not really the science.

I didn't know anyone was on my side here. I apologize to Dad but would still say for anyone on any side, it is better to discuss the data. Yeah, I know, I can dish out the insults as well so no one needs to inform me of my own hypocrisy in the above cause I am already aware of it.
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nope. I allow the use of statistics to prepare the data for me. As Thaumathurgy has shown, using statistics you can get around single cases of faulty data. And, that's all you have. Single cases which you bring up again and again and again, like a broken record. All the while, you fail to understand that single cases just doesn't matter in the big picture.

If I recall you said you weren't a scientist. If my memory is correct then I would say that you dont do any of what you say above.

And thaumaturgy has not shown any way to get around bias in the data set. Bias doesn't disappear via averaging.



Irrelevant question number one. You really do like deflection, don't you, Glen? For the record, this has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion, but just so Glen can't harp on about how I'm a cowardlike he so maturely did to Thauma, no, I wouldn't put it there.

This shows that you can't follow an argument, or even think a move ahead. What do you think I would do with an actual answer to the question?

Two things you forget Thistle. I started the thread so it is about what I say it is about, and secondly since I have shown so many cases of thermometers next to heat sources, the issue is quite relevant. You may go back to sleep now.




No, it's you who have a political agenda. You're an oil man. You stand to lose your income, so you argue for purely selfish political reasons. It's despicable, but understandable.

Having a political agenda doesn't determine truth or falsity. Only facts do that. Once again you show your desperate need for a course in logic.



No, but apparently you are stupid enough to thing this is relevant. This is irrelevant question number two, by the way.



I didn't say that, though. That's your strawman version of my post. Maybe you should re-read the post where I said you where unlikeable? I know you have a problem understanding written text, but that post isn't that complicated.

It is relevant because that is what the weather service is doing with the thermometers used in the global warming studies. They put them next to heat sources which is no different than putting your child's thermometer on the hot stove before reading the temperature.

As far as I can see, you are a wee bit too thick to have seen that relevancy. As I said, you can go back to sleep now.
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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. :thumbsup:

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?
 
Upvote 0

Thistlethorn

Defeated dad.
Aug 13, 2009
785
49
Steering Cabin
✟16,260.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
If I recall you said you weren't a scientist. If my memory is correct then I would say that you dont do any of what you say above.

I don't have to be a scientist to recognize your faulty logic, erroneous premises and outright raping of data.

And thaumaturgy has not shown any way to get around bias in the data set. Bias doesn't disappear via averaging.

He has show mathematically that you're wrong. If his math is wrong, prove it mathematically.

This shows that you can't follow an argument, or even think a move ahead. What do you think I would do with an actual answer to the question?

I have no idea. It's a completely irrelevant question. You'd probably use it to make an irrelevant point.

Two things you forget Thistle. I started the thread so it is about what I say it is about,

If you are going to change the subject, I'm sure most people would appreciate you telling us.

and secondly since I have shown so many cases of thermometers next to heat sources, the issue is quite relevant. You may go back to sleep now.

What was it? 8%? Already shown by thauma to be insignificant when treated statistically? When plotted against data from good stations the graphs line up? Yeah, relevant indeed. Perhaps you shouldn't have been sleeping when this thread slipped from your grubby fingers.

Having a political agenda doesn't determine truth or falsity. Only facts do that. Once again you show your desperate need for a course in logic.

I'm glad to see you admit to having a political agenda, finally. The facts aren't on your side, otherwise you'd even have a valid point.

It is relevant because that is what the weather service is doing with the thermometers used in the global warming studies. They put them next to heat sources which is no different than putting your child's thermometer on the hot stove before reading the temperature.

8%. Insignificant when treated statistically. Indistinguishable from a graph plotted with only "good" data. Wake up, Glen.

As far as I can see, you are a wee bit too thick to have seen that relevancy. As I said, you can go back to sleep now.

Yes, we've seen the relevancy of your claims now, Glen. Wake up. Or at least, read the smegging thread.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I love the drive by postings that have zero content other than insults. Is that what the AGW folk have come to? If you can't beat them on the science, beat them down with insults? Interesting approach to science you have there dad.

So Dad, please explain why there is so much variation with the season in the temperature difference between two towns only 16 miles apart. While your insults are not particularly creative, or even interesting, they really are a diversion from the data.
weatherMNMontevideoMilan180dave1968-1975.jpg


Would you care to comment on the data or merely throw out another insult?

Hi, Glenn. It is nice to communicate with you. We could have more to talk about. I am also amazed that you have time to throw mud back and forth with people who are not really interested in discussing science.

Regards to the data, is this a temperature pattern only shown in the area of that two towns? I would expect that this to be a general pattern to many more towns in MN.
 
Upvote 0