jcd11235

My posts imply no such thing. However, if an output cannot withstand subsequent peer review, then its validity should be questioned. Then why was your first response, and all the ones after it, only concerned with peer review? Because I'm curious as to whether the claims on which you based your argument have withstood subsequent peer review. If he is going to critique a peer reviewed study, then shouldn't that critique also be subjected to peer review? Edit: I stand corrected. Wegman didn't critique the MBH paper, he critiqued a portion of the M&M paper, which was not published in any credible peer reviewed journal. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

My posts imply no such thing. However, if an output cannot withstand subsequent peer review, then its validity should be questioned. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Your explanation is also inapplicable, and isn't a driving factor regarding district funding. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You lost all credibility regarding having the ability to make a reasonable point right there. If you don't understand the importance of the peer review process, then your understanding whether or not a critique of a peer reviewed study is credible or not is open to doubt. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I see. He must have been testifying about his own peer reviewed research on the topic, though, right? In that peer reviewed research, did he address all the other studies that have reached similar conclusions as Mann with different methodologies? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Huh? A better approximation than property density for amount of local funding for the school system would be: average_property_value * number_of_properties_in_district * tax_rate High property density can be high income housing or low income housing. The property taxes would be different, even if the property density were similar. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Have you considered examining up to date reports? Which peer reviewed study was that, and in which scientific journal was it published? Or was it just something you read in the blogosphere? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Please, list all of the scientists that have confirmed Rutherford's conclusions regarding the structure of the atom. While your at it, list all the scientists that have confirmed the conclusions of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Or, perhaps we tend to give credit to those who first make discoveries? You should also be aware that Mann's research has revisited the topic multiple times, so just because you see his name does not imply that his initial study is the one which is being cited as evidence. Really. Sorry to burst your bubble. You've been reading that thoroughly debunked M&M report again, haven't you? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think you will find, upon closer examination, that Einstein overlooked some critical considerations in his thought experiments that he used in an attempt to find flaws in the Copenhagen model. It's an example of science actively trying to disprove hypotheses however they can conceive might be possible. That is how science is supposed to work, and one of the things that makes it great. Incorrect. No one is "shutting out" any side of global warming research. But, as Einstein and Bohr showed us, being uncomfortable with scientific evidence is not enough to comprise alternative conclusions. That requires evidence. The fact of the matter is that the evidence on the topic is overwhelmingly supportive of increasing global temperatures with an anthropogenic element. No one is trying to keep anyone else from doing research to find evidence supporting an alternate conclusion. However, there is a reasonable expectation that that research be subject to the same level of scrutiny as the research it attempts to disprove. Actually, I think the deniers have taken a page from the legal playbook. I'm thinking of the Tobacco Institute, for which "scientists" performed studies designed solely to cast doubt upon the validity of accepted scientific data regarding the health risks of smoking. It was all about persuading jurors and had nothing to do with reaching logical conclusions based on sound evidence. The same thing occurs today with global warming. There's a consensus among those who know what their talking about, but energy companies such as Exxon sponsor the same tricks as the Tobacco Institute to cast doubt on sound science to create public debate on something that is not debatable outside of valid scientific research. NY Times op eds cannot change the scientific conclusions, but they can cast doubt on science in public opinion. Do lawyers ever use logic to arrive at facts? Sure, if that is what will work to convince jurors that their argument is the believable one. They will also abandon logic in their argument, if that is what best serves their client. Heck, I can "prove" that 1 = 0, and most people would be unable to find the flaw in the logic. It's unlikely any mathematicians would be fooled, though. Of course if only laymen sit on the jury … Attorneys' obligations are to their clients, not the truth. Scientists' obligation is to the truth. While their interests may sometimes coincide, they often don't. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Science is about reaching logical conclusions based upon evidence. Law is about persuading jurors to believe their clients' claims (or not believe the opponents' claims). Two different goals with two different methodologies. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sorry, I should have said assets, not profits. In a different post I linked to the interview. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That would be an incorrect observation. He may be given credit for reaching the conclusion first, but that's different from being the prime evidence. He has made his full data set available to other researchers. Considering that the results have been reproduced in numerous ways, it is unlikely that any of the data were "tweaked." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Way to ignore the fact that different scientists, using different data sources and different statistical methods, reached the same conclusions as Mann. Climatologists haven't "hitched their wagon" to Mann's study. They have found that his results are reproducible and repeatable. Claims that the conclusion is incorrect have been heard, examine, and disregarded on their own (lack of) merit. But go ahead and cling to your denial. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Don't feel too bad … Former Hooters Waitress Settles Toy Yoda Lawsuit The Associated Press | May 9, 2002 | AP staff Posted on May 9, 2002 4:50:36 PM EDT by jpthomas PANAMA CITY, Fla. (AP) - A former waitress has settled a lawsuit against Hooters, which she said promised to award her a new Toyota but instead gave her a toy Yoda. An attorney for Jodee Berry said Wednesday that he could not immediately disclose the settlement's details. "She's satisfied with it," said the attorney, David Noll. He did say that Berry can now go to a local car dealership and "pick out whatever type of Toyota she wants." Berry, 27, won a beer sales contest in last May at the Panama City Beach Hooters. She believed she had won a new Toyota car. She was blindfolded and led to the restaurant parking lot, but when the blindfold was removed, she found she was the winner of a toy Yoda Star Wars doll. Berry quit the restaurant a week later and filed a lawsuit in August against Gulf Coast Wings, Inc., the corporate owner of the local Hooters, alleging breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. The restaurant's manager, Jared Blair, has said the whole contest was an April Fools' joke. This settlement is unusual in that Hooters did not ask for a sweeping confidentiality agreement, Noll said. "I think that's a recognition of the fact that there's been such an amazing amount of attention focused on this case," he said. "There's not a whole lot of reason to try to hide its existence." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're welcome. I hope you can find a good price.

Most likely because the US doesn't have the world's worst healthcare, either. It's better than some countries'. Also, America's very best doctors are better than average in terms of quality. America's private system ensures that the rich can access many of these doctors. There's lots of reasons why some people would come to and some people would leave America for better care. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Quit your nationalism where it's unwarranted. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Does he address the fact that other scientists have used alternate methodology only to reach the same conclusions as Mann? In my testimony here today, I would like to emphasize the following key points: 1) Numerous independent studies using different data and different statistical methods have re-affirmed the most important conclusions of the work my colleagues and I began more than a decade ago. All published studies show that late 20th century average Northern Hemisphere warmth appears to be unprecedented over at least the past 1000 years. Several studies now suggest this holds over an even longer timeframe. 2) Our main conclusions have recently been endorsed by an expert non-partisan report issued by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) just weeks ago. The NAS endorsed our conclusion that the late 20th century Northern Hemisphere average warmth was likely anomalous in the context of at least the past 1000 years. “Likely” means having a slightly better than even probability --- i.e., a probability of roughly two-thirds. (See 2001 IPCC Report). In their press conference, the authors of the NAS report stated that they too believe a roughly two-thirds probability can be attached to this conclusion. The NAS report also noted that our conclusions are supported by multiple independent studies and independent lines of evidence. 3) The precise details of our early work have been independently reproduced and confirmed by climate scientists Dr. Eugene Wahl and Dr. Caspar Ammann based on the data used in our study and the algorithm descriptions that have been available in the public domain for years. This work also confirms that my co-authors and I fully adhered to scientific standards by making our data available to other researchers. 4) Climate scientists are not a close-knit “social” group that engages in group think. Hundreds of scientists work in this field and we are a competitive bunch. We compete for scarce research dollars, academic recognition, and professional standing. Every scientific publication that my colleague or I have published has been subject to rigorous and independent peer review. Peer review in my field is anonymous. Authors play no role in selecting peer reviewers. And it is quite possible --- indeed likely --- that a journal will select someone who has expressed skepticism in one’s work as a peer reviewer. 5) The evidence for human-induced climate change does not rest solely or primarily on paleoclimatic evidence generally, or on my work in particular. Testimony of Dr. Michael E. Mann before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce July 27, 2006 Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes. Correct, it is based on theory in the scientific sense. That is, we can take data inputs and make accurate predictions based upon them. True, but it's not about the number of links. It's about the preponderance of scientific evidence. The evidence is overwhelmingly one sided, favoring the claim of anthropogenic global warming. The debate is in popular culture, where emotion and political ideologies play a bigger role than scientific evidence. But you can ignore the hundreds, if not thousands, of peer reviewed scientific studies if it makes you feel better. True. No one disputes that. However, we are now seeing climate change on a timescale not before seen in many centuries for which we have data. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If I'm understanding your post correctly, you are claiming that Voodoo is a religion based on sound, understood science. Is that correct? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Or it might have to do with the fact that the US has the highest per capita healthcare costs in the world, but not the highest quality care. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

But not in the context to the conversation in the post you replied to. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're right. It's because they can get cheaper/better care elsewhere. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Are you referring to the thoroughly and repeatedly debunked M&M paper? It was more than just climatologists that called them on their BS methodologies. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Gore donated the profits from his book and movie to a foundation/institution devoted to understanding and mitigating global warming. But why should anyone let facts get in the way of their Gore bashing? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!