(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-03 08:35 pm (UTC)
What Anton said. I guess there's also the possibility that the sun's about to enter/has entered a cooling cycle, but the data about that is not very clear, and the folks doing that modelling are about on a par with the effects of global warming people - i.e. still not very good.

I found it to be a very poor article. a) I couldn't actually find a link to the statisticians questioned or their methodologies. b) somewhere in there, I'd think one should reasonably talk about Bayesian reasoning, and what sort of weight you are supposed to give the most recent evidence. You'll notice the trick they used to compare the recent data to statistical variation in the past has a glaring fault to it: if it does represent a change in the trend, the fact that it looks like what turned out to be statistical variation in the past is a red herring.

Really, what a good Baysesian reasoner would say is that the recent data would lower the case for global warming by a bit. Not like the official reports that claim that the decline in the last few years is evidence in favor of the theory (if you need the cites for that, chase down David Friedman's blog, where he discusses it extensively.)
(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

jducoeur: (Default)
jducoeur

June 2025

S M T W T F S
12 34567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags