Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The Holocene Deniers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="grmorton" data-source="post: 53034466" data-attributes="member: 85112"><p>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. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>What you see on this thread is plenty of documentation that the thermometer system is not good.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><strong>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.</strong></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="grmorton, post: 53034466, member: 85112"] 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. What you see on this thread is plenty of documentation that the thermometer system is not good. 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. 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. [B][/B] [B]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.[/B] 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The Holocene Deniers
Top
Bottom