or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished. - Page 7

post #241 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

It's amazing that they now nominated a propgandist and liar and fear mongerer for a Nobel peace prize. Now really what is the world coming to.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aitdeJI9Ezk0

My question is what does this have to do with peace? Oh wait, maybe he'll prevent the bloodthirsty U.S from starting any more wars for oil.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #242 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

My question is what does this have to do with peace? Oh wait, maybe he'll prevent the bloodthirsty U.S from starting any more wars for oil.

If they just would have prices for ignorance .......
post #243 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

My question is what does this have to do with peace? Oh wait, maybe he'll prevent the bloodthirsty U.S from starting any more wars for oil.

And yet you still believe to this day that the war in Iraq was all about Saddam. Telling.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #244 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Scientests have been looking at over 150 years of temperature data, and they say "yep, it's warmer" about 0.8 degrees C warmer in the past 100 years.

Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850


Well, it does leave one speechless in light of Brohan's rigorous approach to statistics:


Quote:
HadCRU and Rumsfeld [2004]
By Steve McIntyre
Wegman observed last summer that climate scientists failed to involve statisticians to an appropriate degree in the work. Yesterday Simon Tett drew our attention to Brohan et al 2006 as an explanation of uncertainties in HadCRU3. Brohan et al, of which Tett is a coauthor, used the prominent statistician, Donald Rumsfeld, as an authority for their uncertainty model. Brohan et al:

"A definitive assessment of uncertainties is impossible, because it is always possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns. There are, however, several known limitations in the data, and estimates of the likely effects of these limitations can be made [Rumsfeld, 2004]."

Rumsfeld, 2004 has the following reference (to a 2002 press conference):

"The Acronym Institute. Disarmament documentation. Back to disarmament documentation, June 2002. Defense secretary Rumsfeld press conference, June 6. ”Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, press conference at NATO headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, June 6, 2002,” US Department of Defense transcript. www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0206/doc04.htm"

The salient quote appears to be:

"Question: Regarding terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, you said something to the effect that the real situation is worse than the facts show. I wonder if you could tell us what is worse than is generally understood.

Rumsfeld: Sure. All of us in this business read intelligence information. And we read it daily and we think about it and it becomes, in our minds, essentially what exists. And that’s wrong. It is not what exists. I say that...

LOL... should we give Brohan a pass? Perhaps he was drunk? On meds?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1109
post #245 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Well, it does leave one speechless in light of Brohan's rigorous approach to statistics:




LOL... should we give Brohan a pass? Perhaps he was drunk? On meds?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1109

From Brohan, et. al. (full paragraph, not taken out of context (RE: last sentance));


Quote:
To use the data for quantitative, statistical analysis, for instance a detailed comparison with GCM results, the uncertainties of the gridded anomalies are a useful additional field. A definitive assessment of uncertainties is impossible, because it is always possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns. There are, however, several known limitations in the data, and estimates of the likely effects of these limitations can be made [Rumsfeld, 2004]. This means that uncertainty estimates need to be accompanied by an error model: a precise description of what uncertainties are being estimated.

And from Rumsfeld, I would choose the following verbage (since it is a matter of interpretation as to which specific part of that PC that Brohan, et. al. are referring to):

Quote:
There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. It sounds like a riddle. It isn't a riddle. It is a very serious, important matter. There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I distinctly remember watching that PC, made sense then, and still makes sense now.

So basically, the paper cites reference about uncertainties, and goes on in the next sentence to explain what error estimates can be made, and then goes on to make said error estimates. That also makes sense to me.

PS - More crapola from a GW skeptic website, whodathunk!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #246 of 248
The original topic dovetails nicely with the recent Liberal/Conservative Fascist US/UN consensus criminalizing historical inquiry, i.e., the anti-anti-Holocaust resolution condemning Holocaust denial.
post #247 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

From Brohan, et. al. (full paragraph, not taken out of context (RE: last sentence));

And from Rumsfeld, I would choose the following verbage (since it is a matter of interpretation as to which specific part of that PC that Brohan, et. al. are referring to):

I distinctly remember watching that PC, made sense then, and still makes sense now.

So basically, the paper cites reference about uncertainties, and goes on in the next sentence to explain what error estimates can be made, and then goes on to make said error estimates. That also makes sense to me.

PS - More crapola from a GW skeptic website, whodathunk!

My shock had nothing to do with WHAT Brohan was saying, but that in a scientific paper he would cite Rumsfeld for any reason, especially on uncertainty. This is supposed to be a scientific paper.

It was stunning as a faux pas, the most generious take must be that he thought it was a bit of levity...god only knows.
post #248 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

And yet you still believe to this day that the war in Iraq was all about Saddam. Telling.

Do I?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished.