5 ms·

If you're really this interested in it and really suspect an entire scientific field has engaged in completely terrible statistics, it's basic statistics and I

by smcq 17y ago

If you're really this interested in it and really suspect an entire scientific field has engaged in completely terrible statistics, it's basic statistics and I suggest you publish a paper yourself. That or you go look for the papers or the reason the papers have not been written. This game is old. The standard of proof to demonstrate the method is flawed based on poor correlations is on your side. The method to do the correlation is public knowledge. The data to correlate is public knowledge. R is open source. Go forth and correlate.

foldr 17y ago
>If you're really this interested in it and really suspect an entire scientific field has engaged in completely terrible statistics You're confused about something: the post you're replying to clearly wasn't accusing an entire scientific field of engaging in "completely terrible" statistics. The poster was just questioning whether the comparison you were suggesting was feasible given our current (rather imperfect) knowledge of temperature changes over the last few hundred years. It may not be a matter of just getting two sets of figures and comparing them.
- smcq 17y ago
  Moving the goalpost. God damn, this place just became reddit. Cheers. Enjoy the cesspool you created.
  - foldr 17y ago
    I honestly don't understand what you mean. But if you think these discussions are games in which the aim is to score points (as your analogy would suggest) please do sod off back to reddit.
    - smcq 17y ago
      You wouldn't. Moving the goalpost is a fallacy, though given your complete inability to do original research I doubt you could ever find that out on your own. This thread started because you asked for unreasonable evidence in response to a post that said "They are proven to be unreliable over a signifcant period, and we don't know if or how often that's also true of the past." (emphasis mine). This is a clear claim that climate science researchers have not done basic statistics when presenting new models. This claim has been substantiated by nothing except you requesting more and more detailed analysis from non-experts, which you discount every time we provide it because you assert that you would only listen to an expert. Ironically, you are actually failing to respect the authority of experts, because the discussion is fundamentally an accusation that experts are failing to do basic statistics. You are accusing us of not being experts so you can't listen to us in the defense of the experts you're attacking by proxy. I seriously fucking doubt you understood any of this. But it doesn't matter, I won't return. I have no tolerance for people who argue by asking questions and petulantly demanding unreasonable proof while providing absolutely nothing of their own. Thanks for ruining hacker news.
      - foldr 17y ago
        >You wouldn't. Moving the goalpost is a fallacy, My problem here is that I'm not sure which metaphorical goalposts you are referring to. By the way, constantly talking in terms of "fallacies" (especially these informal ones, as opposed to actual fallacies of propositional or predicate logic) just makes you sound like a petulant 15 year old. (Ad hominem -- I'll do that one for you.) Don't refer me to a Wikipedia page on the informal fallacy of the month; address what I'm saying instead. Otherwise, you may be guilty of the fallacy of Missing the Goddamn Point Because You're Looking For Fallacies Instead of Reading What the Other Guy has Written. Getting back to the issue at hand, I can only suggest that you (a) reread the thread and (b) calm down. I am not accusing any scientists of failing to do basic statistics, and neither was anyone else. I am merely expressing my awesome ignorance of all things related to climate science, and suggesting that perhaps some of the other posters here are about as ignorant of these issues as I am, but lacking a suitable degree of caution in their statements. Good luck with leaving HN. Sadly, I very much doubt that you will find any discussion sites worthy of your superior intellect.

by smcq 17y ago

foldr 17y ago

>If you're really this interested in it and really suspect an entire scientific field has engaged in completely terrible statistics You're confused about something: the post you're replying to clearly wasn't accusing an entire scientific field of engaging in "completely terrible" statistics. The poster was just questioning whether the comparison you were suggesting was feasible given our current (rather imperfect) knowledge of temperature changes over the last few hundred years. It may not be a matter of just getting two sets of figures and comparing them.

smcq 17y ago
Moving the goalpost. God damn, this place just became reddit. Cheers. Enjoy the cesspool you created.
- foldr 17y ago
  I honestly don't understand what you mean. But if you think these discussions are games in which the aim is to score points (as your analogy would suggest) please do sod off back to reddit.
  - smcq 17y ago
    You wouldn't. Moving the goalpost is a fallacy, though given your complete inability to do original research I doubt you could ever find that out on your own. This thread started because you asked for unreasonable evidence in response to a post that said "They are proven to be unreliable over a signifcant period, and we don't know if or how often that's also true of the past." (emphasis mine). This is a clear claim that climate science researchers have not done basic statistics when presenting new models. This claim has been substantiated by nothing except you requesting more and more detailed analysis from non-experts, which you discount every time we provide it because you assert that you would only listen to an expert. Ironically, you are actually failing to respect the authority of experts, because the discussion is fundamentally an accusation that experts are failing to do basic statistics. You are accusing us of not being experts so you can't listen to us in the defense of the experts you're attacking by proxy. I seriously fucking doubt you understood any of this. But it doesn't matter, I won't return. I have no tolerance for people who argue by asking questions and petulantly demanding unreasonable proof while providing absolutely nothing of their own. Thanks for ruining hacker news.
    - foldr 17y ago
      >You wouldn't. Moving the goalpost is a fallacy, My problem here is that I'm not sure which metaphorical goalposts you are referring to. By the way, constantly talking in terms of "fallacies" (especially these informal ones, as opposed to actual fallacies of propositional or predicate logic) just makes you sound like a petulant 15 year old. (Ad hominem -- I'll do that one for you.) Don't refer me to a Wikipedia page on the informal fallacy of the month; address what I'm saying instead. Otherwise, you may be guilty of the fallacy of Missing the Goddamn Point Because You're Looking For Fallacies Instead of Reading What the Other Guy has Written. Getting back to the issue at hand, I can only suggest that you (a) reread the thread and (b) calm down. I am not accusing any scientists of failing to do basic statistics, and neither was anyone else. I am merely expressing my awesome ignorance of all things related to climate science, and suggesting that perhaps some of the other posters here are about as ignorant of these issues as I am, but lacking a suitable degree of caution in their statements. Good luck with leaving HN. Sadly, I very much doubt that you will find any discussion sites worthy of your superior intellect.