[A]s a college educated person, they should know the approximate age of the universe, that the universe is expanding, and that we know that because of the red shift. They should know, roughly, the scale of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, etc
Why should a farmer, or a software writer, be able to put even an approximate number (OK, understanding red shift is pretty basic) to any of those factoids. Surely it is far more important to know that the effects of capsaicin are mediated by the TRPV1 receptor... or am I naval gazing?;) (Believe it or not, but that question was actually put to me over lunch this weekend.)
OK, any science graduate must have a working knowledge of the basics of physics, chemistry and maths (as these are the building blocks of the other sciences). Knowing that the universe's age is measured in billions rather than thousands of years doesn't hurt either, (but really, if you thought the universe was 5 billion years old that is not going to affect most of the work you do in biochemistry).
However increasingly when "facts" are only a few keystrokes away memorising them becomes less important, while recognising fact vs non-fact becomes more so.
Bill Nye is... saying that too many people lack basic scientific literacy.
I can read what Bill Nye is saying. What I'm saying is that, in the context in which he answered that question, his diagnosis is wrong. It's not so much a database that is required, as a bullshit detector.
I'm not sure, perhaps your knowledge of immunology is so good as to be comparable to amount to a knowledge of "age of the universe... the scale of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, etc." But even if your work in science has never brought you into contact with CST, you ought to be able to assess the credibility of evidence led by anti-vaxxers for example.
CS people are better educated than the average person, but many of them are still surprisingly ignorant about scientific topics.
And neither should we expect them to be experts outside their own field. I should have no reasonable expectation that a farmer (Nye wrote "regular software writers and farmers") would have expertise in astrophysics for example. And as science requires ever more specialisation, I should have no reasonable expectation either that an astrophysicist be an expert in pharmacology (just don't try telling any physicist that!;)
The problem is not so much the lack of knowledge about "scientific topics," it the lack of humility in regard to those who have knowledge. You are free, of course, to contradict the orthodoxy in absolutely any field of science, but it is impertient to do so unless you have done the hard yards and made yourself an expert. The knowledge, the skill rather, that everyone ought to possess (and this IMO is more important than direct knowledge of "science topics") is the skill to assess the credibility and authoritativeness of sources of scientific "information." It is this skill, in light of the increasing supply of disinformation, that a science education ought to impart.
You may think that measles isn't that serious (you'd be wrong), but it could just as easily have been polio. The inability to sort out scientific information from scientific disinformation kills!
So, all some poor country has to do is just go ignore IP rights - there' s not a fucking thing the owners can do about it.
Sadly that's not so. Because of TRIPS, the poor country will be excluded from the WTO framework should it fail to honour intellectual "property" laws.
A case in point India. They've been forced to back down on their position on pharmaceutical patents outlined in the (now out of date) article you cite.
a Fiesta is clearly not an F150. One is a fucking hatchback, the other is a fucking muscle car.
Exactly!
oxforddictionaries.com is as much the OED...
... as a Fiesta is an F-150. That's the point
They are produced by the same company, one is a feather-weight dictionary and one is the mother-of-all dictionaries.
... paper version.
The OED comes in 4 formats that I can think of off the top of my head: 20 (+3 addendum) volume paper, CD-ROM, online, and single volume microprint.
If you think it's not, tell the people that fucking publish it.
It's not. And I hardly need to tell the people who publish it that, they already know. Obviously! Nor am I going to tell Ford that a Fiesta is not an F-150.
Now calm down, have a look at the same entry in those two vastly different dictionaries, and learn something!
As I wrote "I suppose another Oxford UP product"... it very clearly is not the OED though. No more than my New Shorter OED is the OED... yeah?
I mean look at the definition in the link and compare it to the tiny snippet of the OED entry which I reproduced here (or to the full OED entry if you can access it). Oxford produce enough different dictionaries to fill most peoples bookshelves.
Quick car analogy: To refer to www.oxforddictionaries.com as "the OED," is like referring to a Fiesta as an "F-150." It does indeed seem to be the legitimate Ford Motor Company that makes both.
It's still not "the Oxford" though:) That being said it does accord with the OED's definition 8.c) which specifies that this sense is used in the passive.
8. Of things: ... c.pass. To be composed of, to consist of.
1874 Art of Paper-Making ii. 10 Thirds, or Mixed, are comprised of either or both of the above.
1928 Daily Tel. 17 July 10/7 The voluntary boards of management, comprised..of very zealous and able laymen.
1964 E. Palmer tr. A. Martinet Elements Gen. Linguistics i. 28 Many of these words are comprised of monemes.
1970 Nature 27 June 1206/2 Internally, the chloroplast is comprised of a system of flattened membrane sacs.
The Oxford English Dictionary entry on comprise...
Sorry to be a pedant but that is not the OED! There are many Oxford Dictionaries, but only one Oxford English Dictionary
...unless you count the different editions.
As it is, the OED does include the "incorrect" form under definition 8.c) and includes four entries (the earliest from 1874) all of which use the "comprised of" construction. However it's a mistake to think that it's appearance in an historical descriptive dictionary amounts to any endorsement as regards usage. The OED does not concern itself with correct use.
More to the point however, the dictionary (oxforddictionaries.com) you incorrectly cite as the "Oxford English Dictionary" (I suppose another Oxford UP product) does. And it says "the construction comprise of"... "is regarded as incorrect." lgw's heart can rest peacefully.
So why can't they properly take into account time?
Because the original set up may be buried in time. You find a wind-turbine turning, the wind is blowing. Merely by measuring the speed of each how can you tell which came first? (Yes, I know... you compare the noise profile of the respective data sets.)
But now back to dwelling exclusively on the potential problems without acknowledging any even limited usefulness of this methodology might have...
Would you give yourself a 99% confidence interval, or only a 95%?
The question of the different criteria used in different fields of research is itself a social science question. Using OP's own criteria, they would require only 95% confidence. Obvious... no?
[I]t deserves a more accurate headline: new statistical test can form confidence bounds for how unlikely a it would be for a new parameter to be of this magnitude if there were causation: when combined with existing test it may discredit more potential claims of causation than previously practical.
Did you really need to give it such an obviously click-baity title?
Although "suggest" is far from a confident prediction, I agree Mann is overstating the case made in the paper he cites for the claim "models suggest more frequent and intense storms in a warmed world."
However that paper cited is itself very interesting --and thanks for bringing my attention to it! It's by Kerry Emmanuel, who was one of the joint authors in that Knutson et al. (2010) I cited above --which given the range of expert opinion (ie. from Emmanuel all the way to the sceptic Chris Landsea) carries some gravitas.
What Emmanuel is doing here is "downscaling" (which is to insert more localised modelling into the global model), a technique which has been shown with regard to temperatures, to have given results which more closely match recent short-term trends (for which reason alone they are not to be preferred over long-term global models). I've not had time to study this paper in detail (I suggest you might, along with the earlier Knutson paper), but applying this technique apparently gives a different result from that of the raw global models with increases in both frequency as well as intensity. However, we must not fall victim to latest paper syndrome, I doubt this is the last word on longer-term prediction regarding tropical storm formation and intensity. I'd like to see what Landsea's team makes of this for a start. But an interesting paper nonetheless, thanks.
The reason I suggest you ought to shy away from blogs, opinion pieces and interviews in favour of the actual science as published in reputable scholarly journals, should be clear when you measure the loose language that is thrown around on those fora as compared to the mathematical accuracy required of real science. This is obvious from the previous Mann article you cite, e.g. what "if I were a betting man," (is that a serious scientific prediction or just a "vibe"), means rather vague.
If you want a serious understanding of the current science, -- if you want to know if Cook, Mann, or Watts and Mcintyre for that matter, are straying from the bona fide science; if you want something better than some filtered mythological view of the science --you have little choice but to do the hard yards and read actual papers.
Shouldn't really have allowed him as he's not, from my understanding, actually a publishing climte scientist. The article is about extreme weather events not about topical storm formation per se. That being said the by-line (most likely the work of a sub-editor) does state "cyclones... will become more commonplace." That clearly is to mistate the science as it is currently understood.
In the body Cook himself (as we can now assume) writes " our physical understanding of climate tells us global warming will cause the water cycle to grow more intense. This means both more heavy downpours and more intense drought" which downpours may or may not relate to tropical storms. Given however that this statement is in an article which leads with a description of Cyclone Yasi I think it would not be unreasonable for a reader to infer that Cook is claiming that tropical storms will increase in frequency just as other extreme events will.
So I will accept that, Cooks status notwithstanding, as fairly good example to prove your point.
Michael Mann
There can be no question he is a "climate scientist of... note." However he doesn't seem to deal with the question of hurricanes formation, but rather tornado formation. It is also an odd article to chose since in it Mann is rejecting the notion that he is with any certainty predicting an increase in Tornado frequency. In fact defending his "betting-man" quote as being out of context and not adequately conveying his doubt. He states definitively "It is in fact too early to tell whether global warming is influencing tornado activity." [Orig. emphasis]
In summary that citation is not to the point, and even if the point were tornado formation, it hardly bears the accusation out.
James Hansen
Again a notable climate scientist, but I'm sorry I'm not listening to a >1hr talk just to see if he actually is stating the science as predicting an increase in tropical storm formation. I'll presume like Mann, he is not. Can you quote or give the time when you think this happens?
Of course, it's physically impossible for a die to be 100% completely unbiased. Yet, we carry on as if it was.
Of course it is. And I was tempted to reply to khallow's observation that "nobody knows what unbiased dice roll like" to that effect --with the addendum that we will presume two perfect platonic dice (even though, by definition, there could only be one:). But since he wasn't talking actually about dice that would have been disingenuous, wouldn't it?
Actually for present purposes we don't even need to assume perfect dice. Even with physical dice, adding placed weights is liable to alter the frequency at which certain numbers come up and calculating the influence those weights have on any individual roll is impractical.
OP is also saying that they're waiting on this one, meaning show me the drastic increase in Katrina level events
But OP would be somewhere between oh... 50 to 500 years too early to make that statement, had they genuinely been talking about in increase exclusively of events of which the frequency is measured in centuries. If OP is honestly "waiting," (after less than a decade), they could not have had the point you raise in mind.
You're using models to say that overall hurricane frequency should decrease. But OP is saying the frequency of Katrina-level will increase.
I've already granted you, that ignoring the connotation and context of what was being said, the strict denotation of "Katrina-level events will... increase in frequency," is not inconsistent with predictions of lowered frequency of tropical storm formation. Obviously.
However I disagree that OP intended to restrict their observation to that extent, or if they did, it is a strikingly disingenuous way to pose it. I put it to you that the statement "climate researchers [are] claiming Katrina-level events will drastically increase in frequency. (we're still waiting on this one)" is not the clearest way to convey the current expectation that global warming should lower the frequency of hurricane formation. In fact it is liable to convey the opposite meaning.
The two of you don't agree, but your point doesn't rebut their position
If my point doesn't rebut their position then how do we disagree?;)
This is not specificaly about tropical storms though it goes to my point.
Nope sorry the issue here is very specifically the science of tropical storm formation. As you admit your citation does not go to that issue and is out for want of relevance.
A bit of searching on the site you quote, got me from a page entitled What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?. This page does not claim that global warming will increase frequency of tropical storm formation, it claims the jury is still out on that question. I note this page is more than ten years old so it really doesn't go to what current science says either.
Because its not the sensible scientists im worried about, its the craxy [sic] ones luke Mann, Cook, Hansen and the UN political agenda.
Do you have any interview from the last 5 years with Mann, Cook, Hansen or any publishing climate scientist who contributed to the recent IPCC process in which they predict that global warming will lead to increased frequency of hurricane formation (as opposed to hurricane intensity, as opposed to any other extreme weather event or any other irrlevancies)? You made the claim these exist... now's the showdown, show me the cards or muck your hand.
If you're only tallying hurricanes of Katrina level events or worse and exclude anything less, then models can very well show an *increase* (as stated by the OP)
Sure, but I don't agree that is what OP had in mind. After all moving from a once a century event to a twice in a century event might constitute OP's "drastic[] increase in frequency," but that hardly sits well with the observation that "we're still waiting on this one."
So why are they going on interviews saying the opposite?
Are they?
Who? Actual climate scientists or environmental activists?
When? Since (sceptic) Dr Landsea blew out of the water any suggestion that the historical record showed an increasing frequency of hurricane activity (and compelled the climate science community to accept his finding by showing the damn maths)?
Are you able to cite an interview from recent years (say the last 5 or so) in which a climate scientist of any note is predicting increasing frequency (as opposed to intensity) of tropical storm activity? What is the empirical basis for their scepticism of the (now) orthodox position (and the paper I cited above which includes as authors both Kerry Emanuel and Chris Landsea (ie. both sides of the debate) has to come close to expressing the orthodoxy)?
I feel that if you restricted yourself more to reading the published science (in the reputable journals) and shied away from blogs and interviews, you should be much better informed on matters of science. That's terribly conservative of me, I know.
Keep in mind that a few rolls also don't confirm that the dice are as loaded as you claim they are.
That the dice are loaded was a given in the above example. Even if we know the dice are loaded we cannot with any certainty say that any single occurrence of snakes-eyes is the result of loading. That's the point.
To think that is to misunderstand what Judaism is all about.
Solomon at least (and most likely David too) was (were) clearly polytheistic. Judaism, as opposed to ancient Hebrew religion, requires monotheism and it requires the Torah, which did not exist at that time.
You're trolling now, right? Abraham was provoked into intervening in someone else's war, in order to rescue his cousin...and that makes him a warlord?
No trolling no, I'm quite serious about biblical scholarship.
Abram is said to have "called out the 318 trained men born in his household." That makes him a warlord. Elsewhere the figure of Abram/Abraham that emerges from the text appears at times like a defenceless refugee, however, in Gen 14 he is explicitly described as a warlord (i.e. having a retinue of trained men).
that didn't prevent climate researchers from claiming Katrina-level events will drastically increase in frequency
No, that's the exact opposite from what climate researchers have been claiming. To repeat myself, "[w]ithin the science of climate change that regarding hurricane (and other tropical storm) formation is famously unsettled." The models at least, seem to suggest a probable decrease in the frequency of formation (along with a possible increase in intensity) (Knutson et. al.).
...there is no way to link any particular snake eye event to the hidden weights.
Therein lies the quandary. You know the dice are loaded to come up snakes-eyes; they come up snakes-eyes; but you cannot with any certainty state "those snakes came up because the dice were loaded."
Instead you have to say, "those snakes-eyes coming up again so soon is consistent with the fact that the dice are loaded," or "we could see more and more snakes-eyes with these loaded dice." That doesn't make for so compelling a narrative. And narrative thinking comes much more naturally than statistical thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
You are confusing "pure gold" and "solid gold".
He is.
"Pure" gold is 24-karat, it means that something is made out of 100% (or 99.99%) gold.
To be a complete pedant ... 24 carat is "only" >99.95%. 99.99% (called 4 nines) is commonly the standard of bullion gold.
"Solid" gold means that the item is made out of gold (even if it is an alloy) throughout and not just plated with gold on the outside.
Bingo!
... intended to drive readers into an anti-government rage, and thus generate clicks.
And boy does it work!
18-karat gold is not solid gold. A watch made out of 18-karat gold is not solid gold.
Well a it's solid 18 carat gold watch (at least the casing is). And reportedly it's more 'solid' than 24 carat (or even finer) gold.
[A]s a college educated person, they should know the approximate age of the universe, that the universe is expanding, and that we know that because of the red shift. They should know, roughly, the scale of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, etc
Why should a farmer, or a software writer, be able to put even an approximate number (OK, understanding red shift is pretty basic) to any of those factoids. Surely it is far more important to know that the effects of capsaicin are mediated by the TRPV1 receptor ... or am I naval gazing? ;) (Believe it or not, but that question was actually put to me over lunch this weekend.)
OK, any science graduate must have a working knowledge of the basics of physics, chemistry and maths (as these are the building blocks of the other sciences). Knowing that the universe's age is measured in billions rather than thousands of years doesn't hurt either, (but really, if you thought the universe was 5 billion years old that is not going to affect most of the work you do in biochemistry).
However increasingly when "facts" are only a few keystrokes away memorising them becomes less important, while recognising fact vs non-fact becomes more so.
Bill Nye is ... saying that too many people lack basic scientific literacy.
I can read what Bill Nye is saying. What I'm saying is that, in the context in which he answered that question, his diagnosis is wrong. It's not so much a database that is required, as a bullshit detector.
I'm not sure, perhaps your knowledge of immunology is so good as to be comparable to amount to a knowledge of "age of the universe ... the scale of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, etc." But even if your work in science has never brought you into contact with CST, you ought to be able to assess the credibility of evidence led by anti-vaxxers for example.
CS people are better educated than the average person, but many of them are still surprisingly ignorant about scientific topics.
And neither should we expect them to be experts outside their own field. I should have no reasonable expectation that a farmer (Nye wrote "regular software writers and farmers") would have expertise in astrophysics for example. And as science requires ever more specialisation, I should have no reasonable expectation either that an astrophysicist be an expert in pharmacology (just don't try telling any physicist that! ;)
The problem is not so much the lack of knowledge about "scientific topics," it the lack of humility in regard to those who have knowledge. You are free, of course, to contradict the orthodoxy in absolutely any field of science, but it is impertient to do so unless you have done the hard yards and made yourself an expert. The knowledge, the skill rather, that everyone ought to possess (and this IMO is more important than direct knowledge of "science topics") is the skill to assess the credibility and authoritativeness of sources of scientific "information." It is this skill, in light of the increasing supply of disinformation, that a science education ought to impart.
You may think that measles isn't that serious (you'd be wrong), but it could just as easily have been polio. The inability to sort out scientific information from scientific disinformation kills!
So, all some poor country has to do is just go ignore IP rights - there' s not a fucking thing the owners can do about it.
Sadly that's not so. Because of TRIPS, the poor country will be excluded from the WTO framework should it fail to honour intellectual "property" laws.
A case in point India. They've been forced to back down on their position on pharmaceutical patents outlined in the (now out of date) article you cite.
a Fiesta is clearly not an F150. One is a fucking hatchback, the other is a fucking muscle car.
Exactly!
oxforddictionaries.com is as much the OED ...
... as a Fiesta is an F-150. That's the point
They are produced by the same company, one is a feather-weight dictionary and one is the mother-of-all dictionaries.
The OED comes in 4 formats that I can think of off the top of my head: 20 (+3 addendum) volume paper, CD-ROM, online, and single volume microprint.
If you think it's not, tell the people that fucking publish it.
It's not. And I hardly need to tell the people who publish it that, they already know. Obviously! Nor am I going to tell Ford that a Fiesta is not an F-150.
Now calm down, have a look at the same entry in those two vastly different dictionaries, and learn something!
uh...
As I wrote "I suppose another Oxford UP product" ... it very clearly is not the OED though. No more than my New Shorter OED is the OED ... yeah?
I mean look at the definition in the link and compare it to the tiny snippet of the OED entry which I reproduced here (or to the full OED entry if you can access it). Oxford produce enough different dictionaries to fill most peoples bookshelves.
Quick car analogy: To refer to www.oxforddictionaries.com as "the OED," is like referring to a Fiesta as an "F-150." It does indeed seem to be the legitimate Ford Motor Company that makes both.
Fair enough, my bad.
It's still not "the Oxford" though :) That being said it does accord with the OED's definition 8.c) which specifies that this sense is used in the passive.
8. Of things:
...
c. pass. To be composed of, to consist of.
1874 Art of Paper-Making ii. 10 Thirds, or Mixed, are comprised of either or both of the above.
1928 Daily Tel. 17 July 10/7 The voluntary boards of management, comprised..of very zealous and able laymen.
1964 E. Palmer tr. A. Martinet Elements Gen. Linguistics i. 28 Many of these words are comprised of monemes.
1970 Nature 27 June 1206/2 Internally, the chloroplast is comprised of a system of flattened membrane sacs.
Fuck that, it's wrong.
His source (not the OED, see above) actually says it's "regarded as incorrect."
The Oxford English Dictionary entry on comprise ...
Sorry to be a pedant but that is not the OED! There are many Oxford Dictionaries, but only one Oxford English Dictionary
As it is, the OED does include the "incorrect" form under definition 8.c) and includes four entries (the earliest from 1874) all of which use the "comprised of" construction. However it's a mistake to think that it's appearance in an historical descriptive dictionary amounts to any endorsement as regards usage. The OED does not concern itself with correct use.
More to the point however, the dictionary (oxforddictionaries.com) you incorrectly cite as the "Oxford English Dictionary" (I suppose another Oxford UP product) does. And it says "the construction comprise of" ... "is regarded as incorrect." lgw's heart can rest peacefully.
So why can't they properly take into account time?
Because the original set up may be buried in time. You find a wind-turbine turning, the wind is blowing. Merely by measuring the speed of each how can you tell which came first? (Yes, I know ... you compare the noise profile of the respective data sets.)
But now back to dwelling exclusively on the potential problems without acknowledging any even limited usefulness of this methodology might have ...
Would you give yourself a 99% confidence interval, or only a 95%?
The question of the different criteria used in different fields of research is itself a social science question. Using OP's own criteria, they would require only 95% confidence. Obvious ... no?
[I]t deserves a more accurate headline: new statistical test can form confidence bounds for how unlikely a it would be for a new parameter to be of this magnitude if there were causation: when combined with existing test it may discredit more potential claims of causation than previously practical.
Did you really need to give it such an obviously click-baity title?
Although "suggest" is far from a confident prediction, I agree Mann is overstating the case made in the paper he cites for the claim "models suggest more frequent and intense storms in a warmed world."
However that paper cited is itself very interesting --and thanks for bringing my attention to it! It's by Kerry Emmanuel, who was one of the joint authors in that Knutson et al. (2010) I cited above --which given the range of expert opinion (ie. from Emmanuel all the way to the sceptic Chris Landsea) carries some gravitas.
What Emmanuel is doing here is "downscaling" (which is to insert more localised modelling into the global model), a technique which has been shown with regard to temperatures, to have given results which more closely match recent short-term trends (for which reason alone they are not to be preferred over long-term global models). I've not had time to study this paper in detail (I suggest you might, along with the earlier Knutson paper), but applying this technique apparently gives a different result from that of the raw global models with increases in both frequency as well as intensity. However, we must not fall victim to latest paper syndrome, I doubt this is the last word on longer-term prediction regarding tropical storm formation and intensity. I'd like to see what Landsea's team makes of this for a start. But an interesting paper nonetheless, thanks.
The reason I suggest you ought to shy away from blogs, opinion pieces and interviews in favour of the actual science as published in reputable scholarly journals, should be clear when you measure the loose language that is thrown around on those fora as compared to the mathematical accuracy required of real science. This is obvious from the previous Mann article you cite, e.g. what "if I were a betting man," (is that a serious scientific prediction or just a "vibe"), means rather vague.
If you want a serious understanding of the current science, -- if you want to know if Cook, Mann, or Watts and Mcintyre for that matter, are straying from the bona fide science; if you want something better than some filtered mythological view of the science --you have little choice but to do the hard yards and read actual papers.
Merry Christmas!
John Cook
Shouldn't really have allowed him as he's not, from my understanding, actually a publishing climte scientist. The article is about extreme weather events not about topical storm formation per se. That being said the by-line (most likely the work of a sub-editor) does state "cyclones ... will become more commonplace." That clearly is to mistate the science as it is currently understood.
In the body Cook himself (as we can now assume) writes " our physical understanding of climate tells us global warming will cause the water cycle to grow more intense. This means both more heavy downpours and more intense drought" which downpours may or may not relate to tropical storms. Given however that this statement is in an article which leads with a description of Cyclone Yasi I think it would not be unreasonable for a reader to infer that Cook is claiming that tropical storms will increase in frequency just as other extreme events will.
So I will accept that, Cooks status notwithstanding, as fairly good example to prove your point.
Michael Mann
There can be no question he is a "climate scientist of ... note." However he doesn't seem to deal with the question of hurricanes formation, but rather tornado formation. It is also an odd article to chose since in it Mann is rejecting the notion that he is with any certainty predicting an increase in Tornado frequency. In fact defending his "betting-man" quote as being out of context and not adequately conveying his doubt. He states definitively "It is in fact too early to tell whether global warming is influencing tornado activity." [Orig. emphasis]
In summary that citation is not to the point, and even if the point were tornado formation, it hardly bears the accusation out.
James Hansen
Again a notable climate scientist, but I'm sorry I'm not listening to a >1hr talk just to see if he actually is stating the science as predicting an increase in tropical storm formation. I'll presume like Mann, he is not. Can you quote or give the time when you think this happens?
Of course, it's physically impossible for a die to be 100% completely unbiased. Yet, we carry on as if it was.
Of course it is. And I was tempted to reply to khallow's observation that "nobody knows what unbiased dice roll like" to that effect --with the addendum that we will presume two perfect platonic dice (even though, by definition, there could only be one :). But since he wasn't talking actually about dice that would have been disingenuous, wouldn't it?
Actually for present purposes we don't even need to assume perfect dice. Even with physical dice, adding placed weights is liable to alter the frequency at which certain numbers come up and calculating the influence those weights have on any individual roll is impractical.
OP is also saying that they're waiting on this one, meaning show me the drastic increase in Katrina level events
But OP would be somewhere between oh ... 50 to 500 years too early to make that statement, had they genuinely been talking about in increase exclusively of events of which the frequency is measured in centuries. If OP is honestly "waiting," (after less than a decade), they could not have had the point you raise in mind.
You're using models to say that overall hurricane frequency should decrease. But OP is saying the frequency of Katrina-level will increase.
I've already granted you, that ignoring the connotation and context of what was being said, the strict denotation of "Katrina-level events will ... increase in frequency," is not inconsistent with predictions of lowered frequency of tropical storm formation. Obviously.
However I disagree that OP intended to restrict their observation to that extent, or if they did, it is a strikingly disingenuous way to pose it. I put it to you that the statement "climate researchers [are] claiming Katrina-level events will drastically increase in frequency. (we're still waiting on this one)" is not the clearest way to convey the current expectation that global warming should lower the frequency of hurricane formation. In fact it is liable to convey the opposite meaning.
The two of you don't agree, but your point doesn't rebut their position
If my point doesn't rebut their position then how do we disagree? ;)
This is not specificaly about tropical storms though it goes to my point.
Nope sorry the issue here is very specifically the science of tropical storm formation. As you admit your citation does not go to that issue and is out for want of relevance.
A bit of searching on the site you quote, got me from a page entitled What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?. This page does not claim that global warming will increase frequency of tropical storm formation, it claims the jury is still out on that question. I note this page is more than ten years old so it really doesn't go to what current science says either.
Because its not the sensible scientists im worried about, its the craxy [sic] ones luke Mann, Cook, Hansen and the UN political agenda.
Do you have any interview from the last 5 years with Mann, Cook, Hansen or any publishing climate scientist who contributed to the recent IPCC process in which they predict that global warming will lead to increased frequency of hurricane formation (as opposed to hurricane intensity, as opposed to any other extreme weather event or any other irrlevancies)? You made the claim these exist ... now's the showdown, show me the cards or muck your hand.
If you're only tallying hurricanes of Katrina level events or worse and exclude anything less, then models can very well show an *increase* (as stated by the OP)
Sure, but I don't agree that is what OP had in mind. After all moving from a once a century event to a twice in a century event might constitute OP's "drastic[] increase in frequency," but that hardly sits well with the observation that "we're still waiting on this one."
So why are they going on interviews saying the opposite?
Are they?
Who? Actual climate scientists or environmental activists?
When? Since (sceptic) Dr Landsea blew out of the water any suggestion that the historical record showed an increasing frequency of hurricane activity (and compelled the climate science community to accept his finding by showing the damn maths)?
Are you able to cite an interview from recent years (say the last 5 or so) in which a climate scientist of any note is predicting increasing frequency (as opposed to intensity) of tropical storm activity? What is the empirical basis for their scepticism of the (now) orthodox position (and the paper I cited above which includes as authors both Kerry Emanuel and Chris Landsea (ie. both sides of the debate) has to come close to expressing the orthodoxy)?
I feel that if you restricted yourself more to reading the published science (in the reputable journals) and shied away from blogs and interviews, you should be much better informed on matters of science. That's terribly conservative of me, I know.
Keep in mind that a few rolls also don't confirm that the dice are as loaded as you claim they are.
That the dice are loaded was a given in the above example. Even if we know the dice are loaded we cannot with any certainty say that any single occurrence of snakes-eyes is the result of loading. That's the point.
To think that is to misunderstand what Judaism is all about.
Solomon at least (and most likely David too) was (were) clearly polytheistic. Judaism, as opposed to ancient Hebrew religion, requires monotheism and it requires the Torah, which did not exist at that time.
You're trolling now, right? Abraham was provoked into intervening in someone else's war, in order to rescue his cousin...and that makes him a warlord?
No trolling no, I'm quite serious about biblical scholarship.
Abram is said to have "called out the 318 trained men born in his household." That makes him a warlord. Elsewhere the figure of Abram/Abraham that emerges from the text appears at times like a defenceless refugee, however, in Gen 14 he is explicitly described as a warlord (i.e. having a retinue of trained men).
that didn't prevent climate researchers from claiming Katrina-level events will drastically increase in frequency
No, that's the exact opposite from what climate researchers have been claiming. To repeat myself, "[w]ithin the science of climate change that regarding hurricane (and other tropical storm) formation is famously unsettled." The models at least, seem to suggest a probable decrease in the frequency of formation (along with a possible increase in intensity) (Knutson et. al.).
Therein lies the quandary. You know the dice are loaded to come up snakes-eyes; they come up snakes-eyes; but you cannot with any certainty state "those snakes came up because the dice were loaded."
Instead you have to say, "those snakes-eyes coming up again so soon is consistent with the fact that the dice are loaded," or "we could see more and more snakes-eyes with these loaded dice." That doesn't make for so compelling a narrative. And narrative thinking comes much more naturally than statistical thinking.