"Changing amount" includes both "less" and "more"... If you don't understand such a basic concept, I take it you were talking out of your ass and there is no way you will be able to answer my question.
Who is saying the planet will become uninhabitable (even with very low odds)? It is not the IPCC, where does this idea come from?
Even the scenario of highest temperature change at the highest rate will still be slower and of lower magnitude than what has happened in the past (if you trust the proxy data).
Yes... I was talking about the conclusion it would lead to "extreme weather". I mean the statement is faulty to begin with since there are obviously many types of "extreme weather" that need to be looked at separately.
But even ignoring that, I don't think increased energy in system -> more kurtosis risk can be assumed to be true. The system is complex with many feedback loops. That is why I asked what the evidence was.
No one respectable is saying climate change will ruin the earth, or even wipe out humanity... Please stop with this falsehood. When you set cost to EXTREME MAXIMUM it makes cost-benefit analysis impossible for you to perform.
Do you know what "likely" refers to when used by the IPCC? What about "medium confidence", etc? If not, are you qualified to interpret their statements? Please at least skim the report that millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours have produced for you. First, go to page 21.
Huh, IPWC.... I'm looking at the IPCC report this slashdot article is about, right now. It does not sound anything like "consensus". It sounds like properly nuanced presentation of their analysis. This is not what you will read in the news:
There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging.
Right, but (assuming proper experiments and analysis is performed) what level of "statistical certainty" should be required before science is used to inform public policy? The answer lies somewhere between 0 and 6.5 sigma. In a nutshell, this is what the argument is about.
I wonder how the worlds scientists who are all in consensus about the fact that climate change exists and it's causing weather patterns to be unpredictable
Is there consensus on that second part? What is your source? Because that is not what is said on the first page of the report the IPCC just released.
Seriously though I predict 500+ comments despite no one reading the thing they are talking about. That is just today. The number of comments by people who have not read the report will number in the billions a couple years from now.
Science is about observing something and using multiple lines of evidence to assess the plausibility of various explanations for that something. The process is probabilistic and bayesian.
Haha, AC is guilty of questionable research practices.
Between 6.2% and 72% of respondents had knowledge of various questionable research practices (Table S3) (Figure 3, N = 23 (6 studies), crude unweighted mean: 28.53%, 95%CI = 18.85â"38.2).
Indicate the number of IADR/AADR members you have observed/experienced exhibiting X within the last 5 years: -Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data: 72% yes
IADR/AADR are dental research associations and the original source is from 1996. So that number doesn't really mean what you portrayed it to mean.
Ha, this is what I think is beautiful. I was kind of kidding though. Anyway, journal's have no problem with publishing 5 pages articles with 40-50 page supplements, I don't think space is an issue. For people studying very similar things having access to the (almost) raw data would be very useful. Of course it should be curated and organized somewhat.
If you're too lazy to calculate confidence intervals on your non-significant result and make an argument about why the maximum likely difference is too small to care about then you're definitely too lazy to properly calculate (and justify) prior probabilities.
Which is exactly why the data should be published (in supplements), in case someone who is interested can assess that data. Are you really against this idea?
In light of your post, let me revise the statement of my thesis slightly: "publication bias" as generally described is a bias against publishing papers with inadequate data and/or inadequate statistics.
Selection bias (e.g. dropping outliers rather than stratifying) and over-reliance on summary statistics (often assuming normal distributions, etc) are the more important problems I believe this would solve.
Th outright fraud will be exposed, but the real problem is the huge amount of selection and publication bias that goes on (at least in biomed), as well as misuse of stats. We need to start getting excel spreadsheets in the supplements.
1) Enron (for example) did own refineries and power companies, I'm sure many of the speculators do as well. 2) Limiting the players in the market to those who make money based off oil consumption will only make it easier to manipulate the price.
Slashdot Mirror
No one except you thinks the planet will become uninhabitable. Please stop repeating this.
If that's true, there needs to be more competition in the insurance industry. What is stopping them from raising premiums for any reason whatsoever?
Haha, there is a picture. The point was that is where they explain the "Treatment of Uncertainty".
"Changing amount" includes both "less" and "more"... If you don't understand such a basic concept, I take it you were talking out of your ass and there is no way you will be able to answer my question.
Who is saying the planet will become uninhabitable (even with very low odds)? It is not the IPCC, where does this idea come from?
Even the scenario of highest temperature change at the highest rate will still be slower and of lower magnitude than what has happened in the past (if you trust the proxy data).
Yes... I was talking about the conclusion it would lead to "extreme weather". I mean the statement is faulty to begin with since there are obviously many types of "extreme weather" that need to be looked at separately.
But even ignoring that, I don't think increased energy in system -> more kurtosis risk can be assumed to be true. The system is complex with many feedback loops. That is why I asked what the evidence was.
No one respectable is saying climate change will ruin the earth, or even wipe out humanity... Please stop with this falsehood. When you set cost to EXTREME MAXIMUM it makes cost-benefit analysis impossible for you to perform.
Do you know what "likely" refers to when used by the IPCC? What about "medium confidence", etc? If not, are you qualified to interpret their statements? Please at least skim the report that millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours have produced for you. First, go to page 21.
Genius, the true cause of climate change: "Too much wanking". That's something the republican party could get behind.
Huh, IPWC.... I'm looking at the IPCC report this slashdot article is about, right now. It does not sound anything like "consensus". It sounds like properly nuanced presentation of their analysis. This is not what you will read in the news:
There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including
increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led
to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence
that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is
likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in
mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical
mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide
only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic
influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging.
Right, but (assuming proper experiments and analysis is performed) what level of "statistical certainty" should be required before science is used to inform public policy? The answer lies somewhere between 0 and 6.5 sigma. In a nutshell, this is what the argument is about.
Is there consensus on that second part? What is your source? Because that is not what is said on the first page of the report the IPCC just released.
On the face of it this makes sense, but what are you basing that on? I mean is it that there is more energy, or just a changing amount of energy?
Seriously though I predict 500+ comments despite no one reading the thing they are talking about. That is just today. The number of comments by people who have not read the report will number in the billions a couple years from now.
You read 596 pages already?
Science is about observing something and using multiple lines of evidence to assess the plausibility of various explanations for that something. The process is probabilistic and bayesian.
Higher education bubble without research bubble. If the government is going to create one they might as well just create both.
Haha, AC is guilty of questionable research practices.
Between 6.2% and 72% of respondents had knowledge of various questionable research practices (Table S3) (Figure 3, N = 23 (6 studies), crude unweighted mean: 28.53%, 95%CI = 18.85â"38.2).
http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.g003
From Sup 3:
Indicate the number of IADR/AADR members you have observed/experienced exhibiting X within the last 5 years:
-Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data: 72% yes
IADR/AADR are dental research associations and the original source is from 1996. So that number doesn't really mean what you portrayed it to mean.
The problem is that it is wasting a bunch of time and money. Both of the researchers publishing crap and those who have to sift through it.
Ha, this is what I think is beautiful. I was kind of kidding though. Anyway, journal's have no problem with publishing 5 pages articles with 40-50 page supplements, I don't think space is an issue. For people studying very similar things having access to the (almost) raw data would be very useful. Of course it should be curated and organized somewhat.
Which is exactly why the data should be published (in supplements), in case someone who is interested can assess that data. Are you really against this idea?
Selection bias (e.g. dropping outliers rather than stratifying) and over-reliance on summary statistics (often assuming normal distributions, etc) are the more important problems I believe this would solve.
Interesting, I will definitely keep this in mind.
All data is beautiful and should be published. "Inconclusive" is subjective. It depends on the prior probability you ascribe to the hypothesis.
Th outright fraud will be exposed, but the real problem is the huge amount of selection and publication bias that goes on (at least in biomed), as well as misuse of stats. We need to start getting excel spreadsheets in the supplements.
Is the value of the "local dollar" pegged to the USD? Will courts enforce contracts made in local dollars? Give me a more specific example.
1) Enron (for example) did own refineries and power companies, I'm sure many of the speculators do as well.
2) Limiting the players in the market to those who make money based off oil consumption will only make it easier to manipulate the price.