Yes, it can. Normal weather is a bell curve. An event could have a 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% chance of happening and has always had that probability, and when it happens, for the first time it does not represent a change of anything. I'm pretty convinced that half of you people believe what you believe because you never took intro statistics.
This is getting silly. No one is denying that climate changes. The debate is over whether human causes increase change in detrimental ways, and whether the costs of preventing those human causes is worth the degree of impact it would have
It's okay to be a total wingnut AGW alarmist for risk reasons. This is actually the only good reason, in my mind. But that is actually acknowledging that you don't know AGW's impact, but because there is the risk of ruin, you err on the side of the uncertainty that does not risk ruin.
You are still confusing effects and net effects. Think of two people pushing a large rock from different sides. Both have forces (effects) that are discoverable, but not by looking at the net movement of the rock alone.
You need many decades and perhaps centuries of that data to make the determination you want to make. Extreme weather events are part of the weather pattern. What you have to show is that the distribution of weather events has shifted to the more frequent or more strong. And because we have to reject the null hypothesis (chance) with enough certainty, we need a long time of observing.
But that is precisely the point. Extreme weather events are a part of the normal (no pun intended) distribution. So extreme weather events are ambiguous information. You need many decades of data to determine if the distribution is shifted or flattened with a confidence level required.
The system is far too complex for you to be making almost every claim in your comment. You can do a small physics experiment to prove that CO2 increases are causing all of the ocean temp increases? No, you cannot. There could be a feedback system that 100% counteracts that effect or even 175% counteracts that effect and some completely different interaction is responsible for the net increase of ocean temps. And then higher ocean temps will cause more storms? Maybe, maybe not.
If everyone who patted themselves on the back for being "pro-science" would take a couple months and read some philosophy books on science and its methods, I feel like we would end up with far more productive conversations and better research investment and policy decisions. Science isn't s out memorizing facts of what "we know" according to "consensus of scientists". Science is the opposite of relying on what authority figures say is true. That's called religion. It's important for consumers of science to understand what is knowable and how powerful (or not) certain statistical and scientific methods are. The single biggest problem we have in science today is overstating findings that simply are not supportable by the evidence. Scientists included, too -- see: replication crisis, endless reversals in nutrition science, etc
> The number of major floods and the intensity of those floods is increasing, and the most likely agent is AGW", well that's a statement of probability.
Except it's not. Floods are steady and the damage as a % of GDP has fallen 75% since 1950.
Truth is you need a much longer time scale before you have enough power to see an effect of climate change in the statistics.
Actually I think you got it wrong too. Saying climate change most likely increased the amount of rain is actually a causal conclusion that is not supportable. It's an opinion. The more accurate way to say it is that the amount of rain is consistent with what one might expect given the effects of climate change.
But it's actually just as possible that the rain would have been more if not for climate change.
I actually don't thin Bill is saying it's the result of climate change. He is saying it is consistent with what we would expect from climate change. And then I can't tell if Bill or the journoclown is getting it wrong by making the leap that THEREFORE it was the result of climate change. Of course that does not follow logically.
The power of statistics is such that we would need many decades of data before we could theoretically detect that climate change is indeed changing the frequency or intensity of these events. Truth is that things like floods APPEAR to be dropping when measured in meaningful ways.
When people make these statements, they are worse than people who deny science. They are pretending to be scientific when being quite the opposite.
It is simply not possible to know whether this technique is working or not. This is an alternative histories problem, and you have to choose between a bunch of flawed options to detect effectiveness. Each option is so flawed as to render the certainty suggested by the headline inappropriate.
This is garbage. Measuring the effect based on simply asking people if they have been swayed by a Facebook post is a laughable approach and misses how this actually does happen. Yes, nobody (or very few) reads a post containing a logical argument for why Politician X shouldn't have your support and then changes their mind. But many people, especially those who might consider themselves apolitical, absolutely are influenced by their friends mocking Politician X and supporters of Politician X.
Most people do not vote based on a logical viewing of issues. Most people don't even know the positions their candidate claims to hold on an issue, and candidates often switch positions post-election to little or no punishment. People vote mostly based on how a candidate makes them feel and that absolutely is influenced by whether you will have to suffer ridicule from your social circles.
End to end encryption is part of a marketing strategy. They aren't out to protect your privacy for some personal mission. They're selling iPhones, and this feature helped sell iPhones. It took this long for anyone to see this shortcut, and I'm sure there are others, which is why iMessage is opaque.
That said, it reminds me of the password manager debate. Strictly speaking, it's insane to put all your passwords in one place and secure it with one master password. But in practice it actually increases security for most people who would otherwise use "password" for their password on every site on the interwebs. Even though iMessage is not 100%, it's ease of use and integrated nature leads to higher security/privacy for most people. For a use case that relies heavily on a network of people who all have a given encryption app installed for YOU to be able to send them encrypted messages, the fact that "normal" people will use iMessage is actually a big deal.
I left FB about two months ago. I thought I would have withdrawal symptoms, but it turns out the rest of the Internet is full of people fighting about Trump v Hillary, too.
As I have said elsewhere in this discussion, I have had fraudulent charges on my card many times. Does that mean my card was "stolen"? Not sure and don't care. I travel all the time and yes, it is inconvenient to be out a credit card for a day, especially as I use different cards to keep my expenses segregated. But in every case the company called me before I knew anything had happened, asked me to verify the charges, and overnighted a new card to me.
You're right that I am what you defined as a responsible CC user, and I hadn't thought about how that might affect my experience. The CC company makes money off of me in transaction fees, so perhaps they are more motivated to keep a card in my hand than someone who makes them money on an existing balance that continues accruing interest no matter whether they have an active card in hand. But until I see some hard evidence to the contrary, I'm going to continue assuming people whining about fraudulent CC charges have no idea what they are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it can. Normal weather is a bell curve. An event could have a 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% chance of happening and has always had that probability, and when it happens, for the first time it does not represent a change of anything. I'm pretty convinced that half of you people believe what you believe because you never took intro statistics.
This is getting silly. No one is denying that climate changes. The debate is over whether human causes increase change in detrimental ways, and whether the costs of preventing those human causes is worth the degree of impact it would have
He isn't a skeptic. And he cites his source. You clearly are not actually interested in information.
People who know what they are talking about disagree.
It's okay to be a total wingnut AGW alarmist for risk reasons. This is actually the only good reason, in my mind. But that is actually acknowledging that you don't know AGW's impact, but because there is the risk of ruin, you err on the side of the uncertainty that does not risk ruin.
It can be like no flood that has ever happened in history and still be perfectly normal. I'm sure that confuses you.
This is a cop out. "Global warming" and "climate change" are short hands for AGW.
You are still confusing effects and net effects. Think of two people pushing a large rock from different sides. Both have forces (effects) that are discoverable, but not by looking at the net movement of the rock alone.
What is my motivation to make things up? If you weren't lazy, you could verify it yourself, as could anyone.
I usually ignore responses like yours, but I just so happened to be able to easily pull up one source: https://youtu.be/meoETyMA4K0
I didn't pick the metric. This is one of the metrics the IPCC looked at.
You need many decades and perhaps centuries of that data to make the determination you want to make. Extreme weather events are part of the weather pattern. What you have to show is that the distribution of weather events has shifted to the more frequent or more strong. And because we have to reject the null hypothesis (chance) with enough certainty, we need a long time of observing.
But that is precisely the point. Extreme weather events are a part of the normal (no pun intended) distribution. So extreme weather events are ambiguous information. You need many decades of data to determine if the distribution is shifted or flattened with a confidence level required.
It reads your Instagram feed and diagnoses narcissism.
That isn't evidence. And climate has a timescale that is longer than human memory and even good records.
"This has never happened before, therefore it's caused by CO2." What?
The system is far too complex for you to be making almost every claim in your comment. You can do a small physics experiment to prove that CO2 increases are causing all of the ocean temp increases? No, you cannot. There could be a feedback system that 100% counteracts that effect or even 175% counteracts that effect and some completely different interaction is responsible for the net increase of ocean temps. And then higher ocean temps will cause more storms? Maybe, maybe not.
If everyone who patted themselves on the back for being "pro-science" would take a couple months and read some philosophy books on science and its methods, I feel like we would end up with far more productive conversations and better research investment and policy decisions. Science isn't s out memorizing facts of what "we know" according to "consensus of scientists". Science is the opposite of relying on what authority figures say is true. That's called religion. It's important for consumers of science to understand what is knowable and how powerful (or not) certain statistical and scientific methods are. The single biggest problem we have in science today is overstating findings that simply are not supportable by the evidence. Scientists included, too -- see: replication crisis, endless reversals in nutrition science, etc
> The number of major floods and the intensity of those floods is increasing, and the most likely agent is AGW", well that's a statement of probability.
Except it's not. Floods are steady and the damage as a % of GDP has fallen 75% since 1950.
Truth is you need a much longer time scale before you have enough power to see an effect of climate change in the statistics.
Actually I think you got it wrong too. Saying climate change most likely increased the amount of rain is actually a causal conclusion that is not supportable. It's an opinion. The more accurate way to say it is that the amount of rain is consistent with what one might expect given the effects of climate change.
But it's actually just as possible that the rain would have been more if not for climate change.
I actually don't thin Bill is saying it's the result of climate change. He is saying it is consistent with what we would expect from climate change. And then I can't tell if Bill or the journoclown is getting it wrong by making the leap that THEREFORE it was the result of climate change. Of course that does not follow logically.
The power of statistics is such that we would need many decades of data before we could theoretically detect that climate change is indeed changing the frequency or intensity of these events. Truth is that things like floods APPEAR to be dropping when measured in meaningful ways.
When people make these statements, they are worse than people who deny science. They are pretending to be scientific when being quite the opposite.
There are sane people out there. They are rare. But they exist. Here is one: https://youtu.be/meoETyMA4K0
It is simply not possible to know whether this technique is working or not. This is an alternative histories problem, and you have to choose between a bunch of flawed options to detect effectiveness. Each option is so flawed as to render the certainty suggested by the headline inappropriate.
Explain how FB's point system isn't racist And sexist. Ready, go.
Tinfoil hat? Resources are always limited. Software dev teams always make trade offs. This one is completely justifiable. No conspiracy required.
This is garbage. Measuring the effect based on simply asking people if they have been swayed by a Facebook post is a laughable approach and misses how this actually does happen. Yes, nobody (or very few) reads a post containing a logical argument for why Politician X shouldn't have your support and then changes their mind. But many people, especially those who might consider themselves apolitical, absolutely are influenced by their friends mocking Politician X and supporters of Politician X.
Most people do not vote based on a logical viewing of issues. Most people don't even know the positions their candidate claims to hold on an issue, and candidates often switch positions post-election to little or no punishment. People vote mostly based on how a candidate makes them feel and that absolutely is influenced by whether you will have to suffer ridicule from your social circles.
End to end encryption is part of a marketing strategy. They aren't out to protect your privacy for some personal mission. They're selling iPhones, and this feature helped sell iPhones. It took this long for anyone to see this shortcut, and I'm sure there are others, which is why iMessage is opaque.
That said, it reminds me of the password manager debate. Strictly speaking, it's insane to put all your passwords in one place and secure it with one master password. But in practice it actually increases security for most people who would otherwise use "password" for their password on every site on the interwebs. Even though iMessage is not 100%, it's ease of use and integrated nature leads to higher security/privacy for most people. For a use case that relies heavily on a network of people who all have a given encryption app installed for YOU to be able to send them encrypted messages, the fact that "normal" people will use iMessage is actually a big deal.
I left FB about two months ago. I thought I would have withdrawal symptoms, but it turns out the rest of the Internet is full of people fighting about Trump v Hillary, too.
As I have said elsewhere in this discussion, I have had fraudulent charges on my card many times. Does that mean my card was "stolen"? Not sure and don't care. I travel all the time and yes, it is inconvenient to be out a credit card for a day, especially as I use different cards to keep my expenses segregated. But in every case the company called me before I knew anything had happened, asked me to verify the charges, and overnighted a new card to me.
You're right that I am what you defined as a responsible CC user, and I hadn't thought about how that might affect my experience. The CC company makes money off of me in transaction fees, so perhaps they are more motivated to keep a card in my hand than someone who makes them money on an existing balance that continues accruing interest no matter whether they have an active card in hand. But until I see some hard evidence to the contrary, I'm going to continue assuming people whining about fraudulent CC charges have no idea what they are talking about.