@TMTisFree

An interesting economical article here called "Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street".

A good(?) lesson given to us by the 'back to the envelop' modellers or when reality check falsifiates fictional modelling.
The conclusion is as follows:Quote:

In the world of finance, too many quants see only the numbers before them and forget about the concrete reality the figures are supposed to represent. They think they can model just a few years' worth of data and come up with probabilities for things that may happen only once every 10,000 years. Then people invest on the basis of those probabilities, without stopping to wonder whether the numbers make any sense at all. As Li himself said of his own model: "The most dangerous part is when people believe everything coming out of it."

Sound familiar. Let hope the current trend in climate modelling will not lead to such disaster.

Quote:

"[P]erhaps the single most important reason that quantitative predictive mathematical models of natural processes on earth don't work and can't work has to do with ordering complexity. Interactions among the numerous components of a complex system occur in unpredictable and unexpected sequences. Contrary to the usual process of science in which defects and errors become the platform for refinement and new approaches to the problem, environmental science finds itself caught in the grip of politically correct modeling in which there is enormous pressure on scientists, many of whom discover that modeling results are easier to live with if they follow preconceived or politically correct notions. The models take on a life of their own, and become obstacles to conducting serious field studies that might strengthen our empirical grasp of ecosystem dynamics. Applied mathematical modeling has become a science that has advanced without the usual broad-based, vigorous debate, criticism, and constant attempts at falsification that characterize good science."

From "Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future", by Orrin H. Pilkey and Linda Pilkey-Jarvis available here.

Edit: added the last quote

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 21-Mar-2009 at 06:13 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Here you are, America: Your "Carbon Legacy": Quote:

The two researchers calculated that a woman in the United States would reduce her lifetime CO² emissions by about 486 tons if she implemented the green-approved household and transportation activities mentioned previously. But they estimate that if she were to have just one child, that child, over its lifetime, would eventually release nearly 20 times more CO² to the atmosphere than the reductions achieved by its mother via her more mundane green activities. In light of these calculations, Murtaugh and Schlax conclude that "the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle," adding that "enormous [our italics] future benefits can be gained by immediate changes [our italics] in reproductive behavior," and, therefore, that "an individual's reproductive choices can have a dramatic effect on the total carbon emissions ultimately attributable to his or her genetic lineage." We can only hope, in this regard, that everyone's future reproductive behavior will continue to be a matter of choice. But in light of the supposedly "enormous" CO²-related "benefits" of curtailing child-bearing - especially in the United States - no one can assume that such will continue to be the case, especially in light of the claims of climate alarmists such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who consider CO²-induced global warming to be the greatest threat to the survival of civilization ever to be encountered. Faced with such a unique and unparalleled threat, we could well awake one morning and find ourselves with no choice in the matter, mandated by law to only procreate to the extent deemed ecologically appropriate by those enlightened few who somehow simply "know" what is best for the biosphere. It may seem unthinkable today that our government - of the people, by the people and for the people - would ever assume the power to tell us how many children we can and cannot have. But much has happened in the past few months that truly was unthinkable, and only a single year ago. And if it's happened before, it can happen again; for in times of crisis - either real, as in the current economic crisis, or imagined, as in Al Gore's climate crisis - normally-rational people can do some wildly-irrational things. We must, therefore, maintain the eternal vigilance that is needed to preserve our God-given rights that no one has the authority to rescind. Stand up with us and demand that your elected officials carefully scrutinize both sides of the CO²-climate debate and think for themselves. We need thoughtful men and women of integrity to guide our nation, not mindless lemmings.

Murtaugh, P.A. and Schlax, M.G. 2009. Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals. Global Environmental Change: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.007.

Add John “de-development” Holdren to the recipe and you get


Slowly but surely: this is called gradualism.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Quote: 10^-17 meter-seconds is a distance, then? Yes!

Thank you. I think that's about the best way I have ever seen of someone disqualifying themselves from a discussion involving physics.

Oh, and just for the record, here is version 1 of "your" "result":
Quote:

this gives x is about 10^-7 m

and here is version 2, after I pointed out that you had dropped 10 orders of magnitude:
Quote:

this gives x is about 10^-17 m

Strangely enough, despite your critical reading, and despite your diligent retracing of the Nicol essay, you thought that the result was in meters. No ifs, not buts, no excuses. *That* was what you presented.

You supplied the formula, you supplied the numerical values, and you supplied the "result", which was off by 10 orders of magnitude, as well as had the wrong unit. Then you built an argument on that result --- all without even so much as mentioning the Nicol essay. You made the argument your own; Which means that the egg is now squarely on your face.


Quote:

To conclude x is correctly and formally expressed in ms (meter second) in the whole radiation field. For a particular emission line from this radiation field, x is also correctly expressed in m (meter).

x, as calculated according to the formula you posted, cannot be "expressed in meters", because that's simply not the unit of the value calculated. Just like the time I spent on this post cannot be expressed in kilograms, or the amount of milk I have left in the fridge cannot be expressed in liter-Farads. You cannot simply change the unit of a value in physics (nor in any other science).

Let me provide you with an analogy which you may understand: The rate at which I buy milk is roughly 5*10^-6 l/s. Simply taking the numeric value for your 'x' and changing the unit to meters would be equivalent to taking the numeric value of my milk-buying rate (expressed in liters per second) and claiming that it describes the average size of milk container bought by me (in liters).

It is immediate obvious to anyone of even moderate intelligence that that's a ludicrous thing to do (not the least because the supermarket doesn't sell milk in 5 microliter packages), and that to get from the rate in liter-per-second to the average size in liters, one has to multiply the rate with the average time between milk purchases (here: 1 week), to get the average amount of milk per purchase (here: 3 liters). Yet somehow, you seem perfectly willing to just drop that cumbersome second unit from your x without any thought as to where it would go.

And anyway --- what's so special about the second? Why not do all the calculation in years? The x would come out to be 10^-24 meter-years, and simply dropping the time unit, you could the express it as the even more impressive 10^-24 meters. Of course, you would the risk someone picking the unit of Planck Time instead, and you'd end up with x being roughly 10^27 meter-plancktimes, which once you drop that annoying time unit, you'd get the inconvenient 10^27 meters --- which, coincidentally, is pretty much the diameter of the observable universe.

Last edited by umisef on 22-Mar-2009 at 01:45 AM.
Last edited by umisef on 22-Mar-2009 at 01:44 AM.
Last edited by umisef on 22-Mar-2009 at 01:44 AM.
Last edited by umisef on 22-Mar-2009 at 01:20 AM.

@umisef

Quote:

Thank you. I think that's about the best way I have ever seen of someone disqualifying themselves from a discussion involving physics.

No need to feel it easy here; I was so sure you will reply what is quoted above, I found it perversely interesting (or better interestingly perverse) to supply my positive answer that is just correct in the context of Dr Nicol's paper. Such context the response you provide transparently demonstrates you have not investigated very deeply, if at all.

Quote:

...and here is version 2, after I pointed out that you had dropped 10 orders of magnitude...

Piling on an acknowledged typo (remember the "regurgitated" calculation is conform to Dr Nicol) is not what is called an argument to make a case, at least for an adult. Btw I have no problem and no shame acknowledging a typo or an error.

Quote:

x, as calculated... [and the rest of your analogy]

Quoting yourself: Quote:

I have absolutely no problem admitting that I haven't got nearly enough physics background...

You make it crystal clear here. A radiation field expressed per unit of frequency interval will always be a radiation field expressed per unit of frequency interval no matter how you want to twist it with an unrelated analogy.

Quote:

And anyway --- what's so special about the second?

There is nothing special. You obviously did not understand or even read Dr Nicol's paper I have "regurgitated" in the previous thread and quoted in a previous post. What is so difficult to understand: the difference between a radiation field (expressed per unit of frequency interval) and an emission line which is the frequency interval itself? I thought multiplying a ms unit (a radiation field) with a 1/s unit (the frequency interval of a particular emission line) might be accessible to everyone. What is confusing you exactly? You don't (want to) know what is a radiation field? Or having it expressed per unit of frequency interval hurts some of your old deeply anchored knowledge? One can learn at every age: that is progress. Perhaps you want to stay in your old comfortable way of thinking and stay/fall in what psychologists call cognitive dissonance. There already are full of here: you might be welcomed.

Only low level gamers play under the line.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Another example of scientific fraud and political coverup at the University of Albany: Climate Science Fraud in the 'global warming' department.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

thought multiplying a ms unit (a radiation field) with a 1/s unit (the frequency interval of a particular emission line)

Thanks for finally realising that "your" calculation missed a whole term.

Now, think about the amazing coincidence that the "frequency interval of [the 15um] emission line" (weren't we talking about absorption, not emission? Different Einstein coefficients, you know...) should be exactly ONE s^-1. Not two, not ten, not 0.000000001, but ONE. Because unless that frequency interval is exactly 1/s, multiplying by it will not just get rid of the cumbersome unit, but will also change the numerical value.

Next hint --- an interval is usually the difference between a start value and an end value. The values you are talking about are in the 2*10^13Hz range. The chances of the start and end values being 20000000000000Hz and 20000000000001Hz, respectively, are pretty much nil.


Also, it always pays to at least consider whether the results one gets are making any sense. I pointed this out to you earlier, given that you believed the average distance to absorption was many orders of magnitude smaller than the average distance to the nearest CO2 molecule --- that's one aspect to look at, namely "does the absolute value I have calculated make physical sense".
The others are "if I change the condition qualitatively, does my calculated value react in a way that makes physical sense?", as well as "does my calculation include all the parameters which I *know* my result should depend upon?".

Strangely enough, "your" "result" is independent of (a) concentration of non-CO2 molecules, (b) temperature, and (c) frequency of the photon in question. (a) influences the widening (and flattening) of the absorption line due to collision, (b) influences the widening (and flattening) due to Doppler effects, and (c) is pretty essential to absorption effects, too.


BTW, just in case you were wondering --- I have the equivalent of a Masters in Electrical Engineering (which, strangely enough, deals with a heck of a lot of physics), and topped the physics subject in that degree. I also hold an Honours degree in Computer Science (and once again co-topped the class), with emphasis on highly mathematical things. I most certainly understand the concept of a density function. Do you?

@TMTisFree

Quote:

A not so smart tentative to use a reification fallacy

Egads how off base is this statement? You are the one that claimed that pharmacology has no errors. When errors were demonstarted you then claimed that our methods are so improved it means now that no errors will occur in the future. We're talking medicinal use of chemicals here. Claming my converting this into a concrete item, reification, is the fault? I guess we'll have to disagree here. I can't think of anything more concrete, real world, then people taking chemicals, expecting to get better, and sometimes unqualified effects to occur.



You've asked this of others and I ask this of you -- stop the ad hominem attacks. You find it acceptable to call people losers and dishonest? I guess when you frustated that someone is expecting you to hold the anti-gw view to the same requirements you use to denouce the gw view; that double standard is a hard one to swallow.

Last edited by BrianK on 22-Mar-2009 at 02:31 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 22-Mar-2009 at 02:17 PM.

@TMTisFree

You seem to be great at getting info, graphs etc. Do you know of or can point me in the direction of "World seismographic activities". The question or direction I am interested in is: Is the world seismographic activities growing, stable, or lower.

Hope you can save me the time and trouble of using Google.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@umisef

Quote:

Thanks for finally realising that "your" calculation missed a whole term.

Not at all (you also forget that I just "regurgitated" Dr Nicol's paper, thus it is not "my" calculation as you write when this accommodates yourself).

What do you not understand in: Quote:

the definition of the B coefficient is given in terms of the radiation density ρν per unit frequency interval

(bold by me)? As B is expressed per unit frequency interval, dividing 10^-17 m by 1 still gives 10^-17 m.

Quote:

Strangely enough, "your" "result" is independent of (a) concentration of non-CO2 molecules, (b) temperature, and (c) frequency of the photon in question. (a) influences the widening (and flattening) of the absorption line due to collision, (b) influences the widening (and flattening) due to Doppler effects, and (c) is pretty essential to absorption effects, too.

I thought I had already "regurgitated" all of that from Dr Nicol's paper in the previous thread. You missed it, probably.

Quote:

BTW, just in case you were wondering --- I have the equivalent of a Masters in Electrical Engineering (which, strangely enough, deals with a heck of a lot of physics), and topped the physics subject in that degree. I also hold an Honours degree in Computer Science (and once again co-topped the class), with emphasis on highly mathematical things. I most certainly understand the concept of a density function. Do you?

I was not wondering, sorry. Because I essentially don't care. To reply to your question: I don't need to, I mostly "regurgitate" someone else work .

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

I can't think of anything more concrete, real world, then people taking chemicals, expecting to get better, and sometimes unqualified effects to occur.

Sure. That is why putting words in my mouth by writing in post #99 "I admire your optimism that medical research is prefect and never again will we experience ill effects or recall." is a reification fallacy. I never wrote that pharmacological science was/is perfect quite the opposite: I was the one who wrote in post #97 (2 posts before yours) "the 'problem' is that this screening system progresses as Science advances". I hope that you now can understand the *real* meaning of my post #92 "The scientific researches in these field and most particularly in pharmacology, tolerate no error: methodologies (protocols) are drastically reviewed, results have to be reproducible, etc. You cannot play with life. Climatology research is far from having the same quality standards." ; The errors I refer to are errors in protocols and methodologies (hence "the 'creative' methodologies used by Mann") and reproducible results (independence of the studies). I hope it is clearer now.

Quote:

You've asked this of others and I ask this of you -- stop the ad hominem attacks. You find it acceptable to call people losers and dishonest? I guess when you frustated that someone is expecting you to hold the anti-gw view to the same requirements you use to denouce the gw view; that double standard is a hard one to swallow.

You were the one:
1/ pointing to a "winner" in a previous recent post. The smiley just after does not indicate a positive meaning of this word given the introductory sentence of the related § ;

2/ continuously putting/twisting words which leads to the permanent-but-not-so-interesting-tennis-argument-game we both are playing here: there is a current poll at lucia to find a new word for this game, 'mind-toggling' seems good, but 'recipocrisy' or 'spinsophistry' also fit ;

3/ thinking you were called dishonest although it was just asked a question "Are you hard-wired to deliberately and repetitively fall in the dishonest category?". Your reaction suggest you have (unconsciously?) replied yourself to the question.

In addition, you really do not exist to me given the actual number of interfaces currently separating our own respective minds (remember the word 'holon'?). Only your arguments 'exist' in this user interface space. So, when 'I' write something 'you' feel negative, just think that an argument is just replying to an other argument, not to the distanced entity who have formulated it.

Btw using 'I' or 'you' herein, it is a shortcoming that does not contradict the above ; it is just easier to do so.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

You can begin with this Real Time Seismicity page. Check the menu for some Java animations. There is also this page with world wide seismic report. For the US, it is here. There are probably others though.

Bye
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

"The scientific researches in these field and most particularly in pharmacology, tolerate no error: methodologies (protocols) are drastically reviewed, results have to be reproducible, etc. You cannot play with life. Climatology research is far from having the same quality standards

This claim is simply bogus. The field of climatology continues to advance. It's advanced since the 70s and will continue to advance. Heck we've seen you claim advancement here what is 700 articles all against Mann? Stagnation? I call this arguement BS.

Quote:

You were the one: 1/ pointing to a "winner" in a previous recent post

This is a grade school 'you did it first' arguement of untruth. Here is my quote 'Wow a correction which made your calculations even worse. What a winner!' . I did use saracasm to mock your arguement. Commenting on arguements is perfectly legal and is not an ad hominem. This statement by you was again an untruth.

Quote:

continuously putting/twisting words

I disagree there is any twist of words here. I think I've demonstrated more then enough a double standard when you accept anti-gw politics and decry GW politics and hold up opinion and not peer reviewed as ''scientific integrity.... No need to go on. Neither of us will make headway. Readers can make up their own minds at this point.

Quote:

thinking you were called dishonest although it was just asked a question "Are you hard-wired to deliberately and repetitively fall in the dishonest category?

You'll disagree, I mark this masking an assertion as a not so hidden leading question. I feel I am strongly right as you continue to clarify the ad hominem "Your reaction suggest you have (unconsciously?) replied yourself to the question" by bringing forth the personal attack. STOP!

Quote:

just think that an argument is just replying to an other argument, not to the distanced entity who have formulated it.

I call BS again. You called me a loser because you feel I mocked you as 'winner'. Now you claim your arguements are innocent cuz they are all focused on the arguement. They ones I cited were not. Again stop the ad hominems.

Quote:

Btw using 'I' or 'you' herein, it is a shortcoming that does not contradict the above ; it is just easier to do so.

You, you personally, are the one delivering the message. If your shortcoming of misusing I or you is done in such a way that your attacks appear to be to a person and not to the arguement then you have the responsibility as the communicator to improve and ensure your message is carried without the possiblity of being viewed as a personal attack. If you fail then you fail in communication.

If your arguements are really innocent as you claim, then we are here now because your language usage appears to have turned them into something easily viewed as personal atttacks. Sorry but I see no way an arguement could have a 'self deception and dishonesty' they have no conscious. Again I call BS.

@BrianK

Quote:

This claim is simply bogus. The field of climatology continues to advance. It's advanced since the 70s and will continue to advance. Heck we've seen you claim advancement here what is 700 articles all against Mann? Stagnation? I call this arguement BS.

The fact that climatology continues to advance is a trivial tautology anyone can agree with. This is not contradicting that some methodologies and paradigms in climatology was/are (in the case of Mann) incorrect and (in the case of models) non scientific, respectively, and reported as such many times.

Quote:

I did use saracasm to mock

Sarcasm to mock is not ad hominem then. Noted.

Quote:

You'll disagree, I mark this masking an assertion as a not so hidden leading question.

Of course I disagree.

Quote:

I feel I am strongly right as you continue to clarify the ad hominem "Your reaction suggest you have (unconsciously?) replied yourself to the question" by bringing forth the personal attack.

Right or wrong is a matter of your judgement I do not share. My suggestion was an attempt to explain your overreaction to my question about your dishonest representation of my words. I can not make it clearer.

Quote:

I call BS again. You called me a loser because you feel I mocked you as 'winner'. Now you claim your arguements are innocent cuz they are all focused on the arguement. They ones I cited were not. Again stop the ad hominems.

I don't feel mocked, it is just that your "a correction which made your calculations even worse" is an incorrect assertion. And once again, it was also a question ; your susceptibility makes you overreacting.

Quote:

You, you personally, are the one delivering the message. If your shortcoming of misusing I or you is done in such a way that your attacks appear to be to a person and not to the arguement then you have the responsibility as the communicator to improve and ensure your message is carried without the possiblity of being viewed as a personal attack. If you fail then you fail in communication. If your arguements are really innocent as you claim, then we are here now because your language usage appears to have turned them into something easily viewed as personal atttacks.

Attack? If I was to 'attack', it would have at least been my interest to have something to gain. Sorry but I don't see what I could have gained to 'attack', apart to correctly representing my point. You are the one misrepresenting and twisting my words and when I put this dishonest representation of you into light, you are the one feeling hurt and complaining: overreacting again.

Quote:

Sorry but I see no way an arguement could have a 'self deception and dishonesty' they have no conscious. Again I call BS.

An argument can not be self-deceptive and can not be dishonest? This kind of adjectives one subjectively attaches to an argument also flows across interfaces: this very thread is full of.

Let discuss of other more interesting things then.

Edit: removed an unnecessary comment

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 22-Mar-2009 at 08:29 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Sarcasm to mock is not ad hominem then. Noted

Do note you edited out the last half of my sentence where I stated and showed my comment was on your comments not an ad hominem.

Quote:

My suggestion was an attempt to explain your overreaction to my question

Your statement before that question was an ad hominem. The question itself another thinly veiled attack. It's that simple knock it off.

Quote:

Attack? If I was to 'attack'

An ad hominem is a false arguement. It's an attack on the person not the ideas or arguements. It's what you did when you labeled me as a loser with dishonesty. Take some responsiblity for your actions and get back to the topic not attacks.

Quote:

Sorry but I don't see what I could have gained to 'attack', apart to correctly representing my point.

When you used the ad hominem you focused not on the arguements but the person. The reason this is done is to discredit an individual not the arguements. That's what you had to gain.

Quote:

you are the one feeling hurt and complaining: overreacting again.

It's not an over reaction when one is called a loser and not my arguement. It's not overreacting when one attempts to label someone as dishonest with a psychological condition. It's you going off topic to a personal attack. You may now stop.

Quote:

An argument can not be self-deceptive and can not be dishonest?

In the condition you cited a psychological work of a personal condition not an arguementative type. So in the nature of our discussion yes the self deception was on my person not on my arguement.

@BrianK

So you have explain yourself and I respect that, but still disagree with your previous misrepresentation of my words (and consequently with all the above).

As I said "let discuss of other more interesting things then".

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy The site of the South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology has a few interesting bit of information about the IceMan: Quote: 1. He must have been covered by snow shortly after his death and later by ice. Only in this way could the body have been protected from predators and decomposition. ... ...

I`d like to add:
He must not only "have been covered by snow shortly after his death and later by ice", he must also have been located on an icy substrate, so that the body was located amidst the glacier - and not at the bottom of the glacier (which would have been the case if no ice was below the body at the time of his death).
Only this way could the body have been protected from being "grinded" between the sliding glacier and it`s rocky bed - otherwise he would have more looked like the turf and wood pieces mentioned and pictured in the paper in German language you linked previously, wouldn`t you agree?

Which in turn prooves that he died on a glacier (or at least on a thick sheet of ice), which since Ötzi`s death didn`t melt enough - even not during the Roman times - to expose the body to the atmosphere - so that no signs of decomposition could be found on the body.

What did I say?:
"Thus the Iceman had already been buried in (Note: not "under" or "on") the glacier for 600 years when the Egyptian pharaoh Cheops ordered the construction of the pyramid that bears his name."
(found at http://www.archaeologiemuseum.it/en/oetzi-age)

Last edited by Dandy on 23-Mar-2009 at 09:31 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 23-Mar-2009 at 09:23 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK ... What was asked to Pr Wegman was not to understand climate but to give his scientific opinion as a skilled statistician on the 'creative' methodologies used by Mann. ...

Hmmmmmm - reminds me of an old saying we have in place here:
"Don`t trust any statistics as long as you didn`t fake it yourself!"

Last edited by Dandy on 23-Mar-2009 at 09:34 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Interesting

Check this page to view the recent local huge seismic activity (volcanoes) in Wrangell (US Aslaka). The map is here.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Only this way could the body have been protected from being "grinded" between the sliding glacier and it`s rocky bed - otherwise he would have more looked like the turf and wood pieces mentioned and pictured in the paper in German language you linked previously, wouldn`t you agree? Which in turn prooves that he died on a glacier (or at least on a thick sheet of ice), which since Ötzi`s death didn`t melt enough - even not during the Roman times - to expose the body to the atmosphere - so that no signs of decomposition could be found on the body.

Sure. You were the one questioning if all glaciers were melted during the Roman period, not me: from your post #79, your Quote:

If there really had been a period with no glaciers in the alps 2000 years ago, Ötzi would have benn rotten during this period.

Quote:

"Don`t trust any statistics as long as you didn`t fake it yourself!"

This resonates well with the known Quote:

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

- Benjamin Disraeli (attributed)

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

For the down under AU people reading, there is a (long) indictment against failed environmentalists doctrines and compliant politicians entitled Australian Bushfire Management: a case study in wisdom versus folly by a professional forester. A must read.

Edit: changed a word

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 23-Mar-2009 at 02:25 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".