4 ms·

I'm not an expert in climate change either, but I'm a journeyman in statistics and I support his claim that it can be correlated.

by smcq 17y ago

foldr 17y ago
How can you support that claim without having any relevant knowledge? I don't see that a general knowledge of statistics is particularly relevant here -- we're all well aware that things can, in general, be correlated.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  Scientists don't rely solely on tree ring data for historical temperatures, it's one of many methods used. Thus the tree ring data can be correlated against other measurements to know it's accurate for past time periods. This should be obvious.
  - foldr 17y ago
    > This should be obvious. Thus, either (a) it has already been done, or (b) it is more difficult than you would expect for non-obvious reasons. So what is your point? Have you even bothered to find out if anyone has done it or not?
    - smcq 17y ago
      Fallacy of bringing absolutely nothing to the debate and asserting to the point of ad homonim that scientists would have skipped basic statistics on their data. Please see the post immediately above yours and go demonstrate that the method is flaw before continuing this debate. The standard of evidence to show fault is yours. Assuming that papers published in freaking NATURE have sound statistics is a reasonable thing for a layman to do.
      - foldr 17y ago
        >Fallacy of bringing absolutely nothing to the debate and asserting to the point of ad homonim that scientists would have skipped basic statistics on their data. I thought that's what you were asserting. My assumption is that scientists have correlated tree ring data with other sources and found it to be unreliable. But of course, neither my nor your assumptions about what's possible and impossible in this area are worth a damn, because we __don't know what we're talking about__. That is my point. Also, all this talk about fallacies, ad homonim, etc. etc., is very "internet". Especially since you only seem to have a vague grasp of what these words actually mean. Do you think we could maybe leave all that stuff out and have a serious discussion?
        smcq 17y ago
        Moving the goalpost.
  - waterlesscloud 17y ago
    Can you direct me to papers correlating tree ring data to temperature data outside of the 100 year range from the mid 19th to the mid 20th cenutry? You indicate it's obvious, but I'd like to see the actual papers.
    - 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.

I'm not an expert in climate change either, but I'm a journeyman in statistics and I support his claim that it can be correlated.

by smcq 17y ago

I'm not an expert in climate change either, but I'm a journeyman in statistics and I support his claim that it can be correlated.

foldr 17y ago

How can you support that claim without having any relevant knowledge? I don't see that a general knowledge of statistics is particularly relevant here -- we're all well aware that things can, in general, be correlated.

gnaritas 17y ago
Scientists don't rely solely on tree ring data for historical temperatures, it's one of many methods used. Thus the tree ring data can be correlated against other measurements to know it's accurate for past time periods. This should be obvious.
- foldr 17y ago
  > This should be obvious. Thus, either (a) it has already been done, or (b) it is more difficult than you would expect for non-obvious reasons. So what is your point? Have you even bothered to find out if anyone has done it or not?
  - smcq 17y ago
    Fallacy of bringing absolutely nothing to the debate and asserting to the point of ad homonim that scientists would have skipped basic statistics on their data. Please see the post immediately above yours and go demonstrate that the method is flaw before continuing this debate. The standard of evidence to show fault is yours. Assuming that papers published in freaking NATURE have sound statistics is a reasonable thing for a layman to do.
    - foldr 17y ago
      >Fallacy of bringing absolutely nothing to the debate and asserting to the point of ad homonim that scientists would have skipped basic statistics on their data. I thought that's what you were asserting. My assumption is that scientists have correlated tree ring data with other sources and found it to be unreliable. But of course, neither my nor your assumptions about what's possible and impossible in this area are worth a damn, because we __don't know what we're talking about__. That is my point. Also, all this talk about fallacies, ad homonim, etc. etc., is very "internet". Especially since you only seem to have a vague grasp of what these words actually mean. Do you think we could maybe leave all that stuff out and have a serious discussion?
      - smcq 17y ago
        Moving the goalpost.
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  Can you direct me to papers correlating tree ring data to temperature data outside of the 100 year range from the mid 19th to the mid 20th cenutry? You indicate it's obvious, but I'd like to see the actual papers.
  - 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.