freecounterpoint: Hide the decline, part DCCXXXIV

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Hide the decline, part DCCXXXIV

17 comments:

Charly said...: Is this discussed in another publication, Tecs? Not that the Mail on Sunday hasn't established a solid reputation as a top-shelf source of scientific reporting, but my reading is distracted by the competing news of Ketty Katona's new Botox treatment, Mark Wright's confession that he slept with Lucy, and the worrisome discovery that Cowell's crown might be slipping.; 10/31/2011 12:58 AM
Tecumseh said...: Getting high-brow on me Charly, are you? OK, I looked around for the source provided by the Brit tabloid (which I find to be a better source sometimes than your stuffy pinko dinosaurs, like Le Monde). So here it is.; 10/31/2011 9:10 AM
Tecumseh said...: Are these guys so caught up in their Lyssenkoist ivory tower that they don't even think people look up at their graphs, and analyze them?; 10/31/2011 10:34 PM
Charly said...: Calling News of the World trash is high brow - WTF ?; 11/01/2011 2:16 PM
Tecumseh said...: It's also a red herring -- deflecting addressing the real issue, by casting aspersions on the messenger. Not my fault that almost all the high-brow press is in the pinko tank, and simply follows the Party Line. If and when, say, Le Monde does some actual impartial investigation and reports facts as they are, I'll quote them. In the meantime, I'll go with what I can find, and which looks to me most closely resembles reality, as opposed to pinko urban legends.; 11/01/2011 3:00 PM
Charly said...: Ahem, it's your red herring man.; 11/01/2011 5:26 PM
Tecumseh said...: How so? The data doesn't support your Lyssenkoist fantasies. Period.; 11/01/2011 9:14 PM
Charly said...: Charly: your source is trash
Tecs: Ooh aren't we being snooty
Charly: Calling trash trash is snooty ?
Tecs: Red herring !

Rhetoric aside, the issue has become increasingly weird. Nothing like the sight of dogma busting at the seams. We'll see.; 11/02/2011 4:26 AM
Tecumseh said...: Look, Charly, this business is not rocket science. Just go outside, stick your finger in the wind, and ask yourself: is it really much hotter now than, say, 10 years ago? I submit the answer is no, and you can spend a gazillion dollars on studies and grants and such, and the answer will still be the same, once you discard the bullshit hockey sticks, various statisticas da puta, and all that noise that signifies nothing.

Basically, this is almost exclusively a pinko con game, designed to take money from Peter (eg, I, and other assorted John Q. Taxpayer out there), and give it to Paul (eg, AlGore, Solyndra sharks, etc, etc, plus of course the Lyssenkos doing the hockey sticks). I mean, what could be more obvious than that?; 11/02/2011 10:18 AM
Charly said...: Tecs - we are talking about variations on the order of a degree or two. I doubt that your finger is the right tool to measure these variations.; 11/02/2011 3:00 PM
Tecumseh said...: Look at the graph of temps for the 2000s. Do you see any tendency there, besides some random little fluctuations (duh)? Anything in there that justifies transferring hundreds of billions of dollars from one pocket to another, and making all of us miserable, on the altar of a pinko superstition?; 11/02/2011 4:42 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: When the prospect of billions in "cap and spend" enrichments are proffered before the Versailleans, they've seen all the evidence they need to see.; 11/02/2011 8:35 PM
Charly said...: Tecs, you should know that the field of time series analysis is complex and that isolating a trend from fluctuating data isn't something that you just 'stick you finger' to. Look at this data set - is it flat in all frequency bands ? Personally I can't tell just from looking. And neither can you. Don't they teach you guys anything about applied math in algebra school ? Ever heard of Fourier ?; 11/03/2011 8:25 AM
Tecumseh said...: Whatevah, man. Still, we're not talking about an intellectual exercise here. But rather, potentially hundreds of billions of dollars a year (that's the kind of figure bandied about at that eco-summit in Copenhagen a while back) in penance money based on this kind of flimsy data, that look awfully inconclusive to me.

With Euroland in dire straits, and the monetary union bursting at the seams, I'd imagine you guys at least would think twice before pouring more good money down the drain (for what? cap and trade idiocies?).

Better to pour money down the drain in Greece. At least, they'll drink some ouzo with the extra cash, and enjoy la dolce vita au frais de la comtesse. Isn't this what Socialism is for?; 11/03/2011 8:45 AM
Charly said...: Don't jump on another horse mid-stream (aka Rot-ian fallacy). You were the one making an argument about the data being obviously trend-less - don't whateva me dude.; 11/03/2011 8:54 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Tecs, you should know that the field of time series analysis is complex and that isolating a trend from fluctuating data isn't something that you just 'stick you finger' to. Look at this data set - is it flat in all frequency bands ? Personally I can't tell just from looking. And neither can you. Don't they teach you guys anything about applied math in algebra school ? Ever heard of Fourier ?

Which Fourier do you have in mind, Charly? When you graph the fluctuating data you can at least graph the actual data. The actual data looks flat across the board for the last 13 years or so, and so forces you to dig for trends, other than flat, in your fourier regions. Muller offered a graph which first claimed to show an actual observable rise in the fluctuating data, which was false, and then semi-retracted it by claiming that the difference between what he offered and the graph based on the actual data was "not of statistical significance", and so turning statistical significance ass side out.
This was claimed to be an empirical graph based on observed data, and not a statistical reconstruction based on time series, nor a mathematical analysis of possible trends.... which may well be part of the papers submitted but is certainly not in his propaganda piece in the Grey Old Lady or other public forums.
But I have no doubt that Muller brought to his work the same sober care, and mathematical rigor, and respect for evidence, that made Nemesis such a brilliant piece of science.; 11/07/2011 9:44 PM
Tecumseh said...: Charly talking about rigorous analysis and Fourier series is like Lindsay Lohan talking about Galois Theory.
But, at least, LiLo has the looks.; 11/07/2011 10:05 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)