It's interesting, because even if your inexpert opinion is correct, there are again thousands of other indicators.
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @ratman720
I could delve into the stats of climate modelling and give you a proper response, but really, why bother?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ratman720
You're arguing about droplets of water whilst the flood sweeps away your house.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
your saying look at all this uncontrolled qualitative shit we have. Im saying noted, its uncontrolled qualitative shit.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720 @GidMK
your saying we just dont know the magnitude of the effect. Im saying your right you dont know the magnitude of the effect.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720 @GidMK
your saying all these people agree. Im saying great do the statistical analysis on the data itself. You said you can now go do it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720
I would only spend the time to reanalyze data that was in question. If you've "found the smoking gun" as you put it...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ratman720
...publish. You'll no doubt win a Nobel for your work definitively disproving climate change. I'd be happy to read it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
the null hypothesis is not disproving something its simply stating there isnt enough evidence to say it exists.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720 @GidMK
and by extensuon we should not be estimating consequences using parameters suchs as climate sensitivity greater than the physics
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think you'll find if your statistical interpretation holds up that you will be the most celebrated scientist in a century.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.