Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 8 years ago

If it is "warmers" who do not understand statistics?

If it is "warmers" who do not understand statistics, why is it denislists who are easily deceived by statements by about Phil Jones saying no statistically significant warming between 1995 and 2009 or by a single online article claiming that global warming stopped 16 years ago?



Can you control a bear? Does that mean that you should poke one with a stick?

Update 2:

Karl S

Regarding Easterbrook and Giaever


Hs Gregg Easterbrook ever written a peer reviewed paper on climate.


Ivar Giaever made the following statement; "It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years."

Update 3:

Has temperature been unusually stable in the last 150 years? Compared to the last 1,000 years, all evidence says"No," and that the past 150 years has shown unusual warming. It is the 850 previous years in which temperatures were unusually stable.

Update 5:


I posted the data in the Woodfortrees links. But OK, the data does not go back far enough to be statistically significant, so I will fix that.

Hadley CRU

Does that look better? Not to a denialist.

Update 6:

And the evidence that it is carbon dioxide that is causing it.

It is not the Sun

It is not a change in volcanic activity

It is us

Did I miss something? If you have another hypothesis, the burden of proof is on whoever proposes it.

Update 7:

Sure Sage, ignore all of the data except that which tells you what your itching ears want to hear. That sounds familiar.

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (II Timothy 4:3)

Update 8:


From your link.

"The new theory presented in Miskolczi's paper shows that the atmosphere maintains a “saturated” greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content."

Water vapor can not control climate wihtout some mechanism to cause water vapor to change.

"The modellers just assume relative humidity is also constant while CO2 concentrations change. There is no physics in support of this assumption, and no way to calculate its value from first principles."

There is physics to support the assumption of constant relative humidity; the Clausius-Clapeyron Equation.

That does not mean that constant relative humidity isn't an oversimplification, and if there is a correlation between actual relative humidity and global average temperature anomaly, it is incorporated into current models. The source of this statement is that that is how science works. Models and theories are refined to reflec

Update 9:


No. Water can't be the determining factor in climate. One of three things has to be true;

1. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (absolute humidity rather than relative humidity) is constant. If this were the case, then water vapor would not be a factor in climate. Water vapor has to change to be a factor in climate change.

2. Water vapor drives climate and itself is not driven by anything, but does its own thing. This would make Earth's climate very unstable and by now would have turned Earth into this.

3. Something controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, probably temperature. Factors which influence temperature, such as the Sun, carbon dioxide and aerosols indirectly influence water vapor by influencing temperature. This does not lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, because it takes about 10 degrees C (or slightly more or slightly less, depending on how much reality deviates from consta

10 Answers

  • Gary F
    Lv 7
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Most people do not understand statistics. It's no big deal. They are the same people who do not understand calculus, matrix algebra, Fourier analysis, and Euclidean spaces. The difference seems to be that warmers who do not understand the math are generally honest enough and well-behaved enough not to argue about things that they know nothing about.

    Deniers, on the other hand, are shameless liars who think they are right because some idiot like Rush who flunked out of college tells them so. Their statements regarding Jones' comment and the last 16 years of observed temperature are absolute proof of their ignorance and/or pathological dishonesty. No one who understands the meaning of "statistical significance" would ever make the statements, accusations, and claims that Deniers make. They are just as far from the truth - and just as stupid - as they would be claiming that Newton's famous apple did not fall to the ground but, rather, flew off into outer space.

    How many Deniers who constantly rag on Michael Mann actually know what McIntyre's original complaint was about? The only mistake Michael made was in the rotation method he chose for his PCA. However, the data are so robust that the factor loadings do not change in any "significant" way and the results are essentially the same - and that is the explanation for the multiple successful replications of his results. The truth is that is was McIntyre who cheated. He would run 10,000 simulations and only keep the most extreme 1% for his analysis. Even a Denier should be able to understand that the top 1% is not representative of the total population. That would be the same as saying that every American is a billionaire.

    After I got my first job at a research laboratory, it took me a year and a half of grinding all-day every-day before I began to feel fairly confident that I knew what I was doing (even though I had 76 graduate-level math credits). It took about 5 years before I could begin to hold my own in a conversation with the Big Dogs and it was about 10 years before the Big Dogs ever asked for my opinion on anything. It is amazing that Deniers who never heard of statistical significance tests before climate-gate would pretend that they know more about mathematics than the thousands of graduate-degreed professionals who spend their entire lives doing it - and to think that people will take them seriously.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    If I concept as mopar Mike did, I would prove that grime biking was once perverted, harmful behavior. God evidently didn't supply us dirt bikes as appendages, and folks get hurt doing that stuff a lot. So it can be perverted from what God meant for us to do as humans. See how perverted mopar Mike is? He are not able to permit someone else to be a special means he isn't. So consequently no one may also be that way. Mopar Mike is a pervert of the Gospel, but he would not comprehend what that suggests, and yet it is extrapolated via Galatians; a Letter within the Bible.

  • 8 years ago

    I don't give a crap what Phil Jones says.

    Who is Phil Jones, anyway?

    I just listen to the hot chicks on FOX news for the truth.

    Wish they'd show more cleavage...

  • 8 years ago

    Climate Realist: a misnomer if ever there was one. Regarding your statement in rebut toa fellow true scientist:

    <Has temperature been unusually stable in the last 150 years? Compared to the last 1,000 years, all evidence says"No," and that the past 150 years has shown unusual warming. It is the 850 previous years in which temperatures were unusually stable.>

    If you will look at the above article you will see a chart with what the temperatures were during the last 150 years. Take a look at the chart closely and in 1850 the temperature was -0.1 and in 2000 it was right at +0.2 or 0.3 degree C Delta. Now let us take the at worse variations during that period. Top variation to lowest variation during that period. That would be 0.5 degree C Delta. You are calling this unstable? I suggest to you the temperature is more stable than your mental condition.

    Furthermore, in my lifetime of 71 years there has been only 0.05 degree C Delta with the total variation of 0.15 degree C Delta. I have been in several temperature controlled laboratories and machining rooms and that kind of control would be phenomenal. You, by your own words you make yourself look silly.

    Now who doesn't understand statistics? I used that chart because it is widely accepted and for its clarity.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • John W
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    You just like stirring up the nasty hornets don't you. Denialists will deny, there's no rhyme or reason to how they will deny, they just don't want a lot of money and effort going into environmental concerns instead of the economy and will find any reason, even false ones to cast enough uncertainty to avoid doing anything.

  • 8 years ago

    MET, Hadley CRU, NOAA, Easterbrook, Giaever, the BEST study, are hardly one online article.

  • Pat
    Lv 4
    8 years ago

    Miskolczi's paper shows that CO2 is not a driver of Global Warming.

    If you can refute these findings, it would be nice to see a link. He also expounds on this at the end of the paper.


    His point is that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas controlling temperature and not CO2.

    Water vapor can be as much as 100 times that of CO2

  • 8 years ago

    Because, it's not "warmers" who do not understand statistics.

    The deniers will tought their cute little quotes about how statistics can be made to say anything and then they'll cling to any story that (falsely) uses statistics to "disprove" AGW.

    They cling, kind of like the way Madonna clings to stardom.

  • 8 years ago

    There is global warming, there is nothing that man can do to stop it. It is evolution and Nature. One is a fool if they think man can control mother nature ..Ask the northeast! Man is a grain of sand in the predestination of the future of the earth. We can keep people from poisoning our water and in the air but warming I think not

  • Pindar
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Some religions only like their own God's version of statistics.

    But ok let's humour you and pretend that all the data shows warming (ha), so it's warming in fantasy land, where is your proof that carbon 'did it' , whoops hit a bit of a stumbling block have we lol. Proof of warming is not proof of carbon's involvement is it? And then where is your proof that Man's tiny addition of co2 had a noticeable effect?

    Like all warmers you're very good at blowing hot air, but you've built a house of cards with no solid basis/foundation.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.