• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does anybody else find it crazy that some kid from Scandinavia is more well known than scientists?

I just enjoyed the irony of cooling in Greta-land.

Fair enough. If one lacks even the basic understanding of the topic they are debating against it is probably really easy to find humor in the strangest things. Might even make one think they are "clever" when they post things that show nothing but their own general lack of understanding of the technical details.
 
Fair enough. If one lacks even the basic understanding of the topic they are debating against it is probably really easy to find humor in the strangest things. Might even make one think they are "clever" when they post things that show nothing but their own general lack of understanding of the technical details.

Tsk tsk. "Humorless and pedantic is no way to go through life, son." --with apologies to Dean Vernon Wormer, Faber College
 
I'd ask you to provide us with an R^2 and an F-test on those regressions but I doubt you'd have a clue what that would tell you. Or even the implications of difficulties with time series data.

Do you dispute the data?
 
Tsk tsk. "Humorless and pedantic is no way to go through life, son." --with apologies to Dean Vernon Wormer, Faber College

Well, at least I understand the topic I'm talking about.
 
Do you dispute the data?

Like I said, you'd have no idea what those two values will tell you about the curves.

Tsk, tsk tsk.

If someone shows you a graph and you think you see a trend, it really only has value if you can show it is statistically significant. (But, as in SO MANY aspects of these technical topics you seem to lack even the basic understanding necessary to draw simple conclusions). ANyone whose ever worked with data knows sometimes that which simply looks like it has a slope may not rise to the level of actual statistical signficance. This is made even more difficult with time series data.

So you go back in there and figure out what the p-value is on the regression or the p-value on the t-test of the slope and throw in the R^2 as well.

Or just "look at the pretty pictures" and just take whatever your denialist friends tell you.
 
Like I said, you'd have no idea what those two values will tell you about the curves.

Tsk, tsk tsk.

If someone shows you a graph and you think you see a trend, it really only has value if you can show it is statistically significant. (But, as in SO MANY aspects of these technical topics you seem to lack even the basic understanding necessary to draw simple conclusions). ANyone whose ever worked with data knows sometimes that which simply looks like it has a slope may not rise to the level of actual statistical signficance. This is made even more difficult with time series data.

So you go back in there and figure out what the p-value is on the regression or the p-value on the t-test of the slope and throw in the R^2 as well.

Or just "look at the pretty pictures" and just take whatever your denialist friends tell you.

The "pretty pictures" require no further explanation.
 
The "pretty pictures" require no further explanation.

That is 100% NOT how data works. Not in the slightest.

It is EXTREMELY common for someone to look at a graph and think they see a slope up or down. The real value comes in comparing that regression to simply fitting the mean of the data. This is called an F-test on the regression. Alternately one can do a t-test on the slope. It is more complex with time-series data. But the key is just looking at a picture and seeing a slope is NOT sufficient.

In order to tell us if the slope is likely REAL requires something like an F-test on the regression or a t-test.

This is really, really basic level stats.

Now it could be that P. Gosselin has that data, he just didn't post it on the post you cited. So, in effect, he has said NOTHING about the reality of those "slopes" you think you see there.

You aren't even bothering to verify the things you think you see, are you?

Basic high school statistics here, Jack. Super basic.
 
Do you dispute the data?

Why does your source use data from Toyota Climate Center instead of SMHI, the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute? Especially since that Toyota Climate Center only have data from 13 weather stations in Sweden and not the average for entire Sweden. Also why does source only use 6 of those 13 weather stations in their graph. Also why use the warm year of 1997 as starting year? Also why does the graph in your source miss some data point. Also why focus on only one month?

That the likely answers to those question is that your source wants to false claim that Sweden is cooling while the reality is that Sweden is warming more than the global average.

"In Sweden, temperatures are rising even faster than the average. Since 1860, the temperature in Sweden has increased by 1.5C, while the global average increase is roughly 1 degree.

"We clearly see a trend that it is getting warmer in Sweden, and this is most noticeable during the winter," Gustav Strandberg, a climate scientist at the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), said.

The reason that Sweden’s temperature increase is outpacing the rest of the Earth is its proximity to the Arctic. As the Arctic ice retreats, Sweden gets warmer.

"The ice is cold and lies like a cover over the sea’s surface. Just a bit of warming can cause the ice to melt, which in turn leads to the water heating up the air further," Strandberg said."


https://www.thelocal.se/20190208/swedens-temperature-increase-outpaces-global-average
 
That is 100% NOT how data works. Not in the slightest.

It is EXTREMELY common for someone to look at a graph and think they see a slope up or down. The real value comes in comparing that regression to simply fitting the mean of the data. This is called an F-test on the regression. Alternately one can do a t-test on the slope. It is more complex with time-series data. But the key is just looking at a picture and seeing a slope is NOT sufficient.

In order to tell us if the slope is likely REAL requires something like an F-test on the regression or a t-test.

This is really, really basic level stats.

Now it could be that P. Gosselin has that data, he just didn't post it on the post you cited. So, in effect, he has said NOTHING about the reality of those "slopes" you think you see there.

You aren't even bothering to verify the things you think you see, are you?

Basic high school statistics here, Jack. Super basic.

Yawn. Looks like someone's in denial. "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own two eyes?" --Chico Marx
 
Why does your source use data from Toyota Climate Center instead of SMHI, the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute? Especially since that Toyota Climate Center only have data from 13 weather stations in Sweden and not the average for entire Sweden. Also why does source only use 6 of those 13 weather stations in their graph. Also why use the warm year of 1997 as starting year? Also why does the graph in your source miss some data point. Also why focus on only one month?

That the likely answers to those question is that your source wants to false claim that Sweden is cooling while the reality is that Sweden is warming more than the global average.

"In Sweden, temperatures are rising even faster than the average. Since 1860, the temperature in Sweden has increased by 1.5C, while the global average increase is roughly 1 degree.

"We clearly see a trend that it is getting warmer in Sweden, and this is most noticeable during the winter," Gustav Strandberg, a climate scientist at the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), said.

The reason that Sweden’s temperature increase is outpacing the rest of the Earth is its proximity to the Arctic. As the Arctic ice retreats, Sweden gets warmer.

"The ice is cold and lies like a cover over the sea’s surface. Just a bit of warming can cause the ice to melt, which in turn leads to the water heating up the air further," Strandberg said."


https://www.thelocal.se/20190208/swedens-temperature-increase-outpaces-global-average

And where do you suppose TCC obtained their data for Sweden? Looks like you're in denial.
 
Yawn. Looks like someone's in denial. "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own two eyes?" --Chico Marx

OK, Jack, I've wasted some time to make an actual point for you. I generated this graph and ran it through R for statistics.

Rplot.jpg


Do you see the line that looks like a "slope" pointing downwards? THAT ISN'T A REAL TREND.

But it looks like a real slope downward, right? Well see that F-test value up there and specifically the "p-value". This is, at its most basic a test of if this regression is statistically significant.

The p-value is VERY HIGH meaning it is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.. It means that there's really no value to explaining the data using the LINE vs just the MEAN OF THE DATA.

This happens, statistically, through random chance. Sometimes it looks like a regression is real, but you don't really know until you run the F-test.

Now, I'm not saying that Gosselin's data is similarly NOT a real trend, I'm just saying that unless you can show me the statistical analysis of the regression I won't accept just by looking at the pretty picture.

Again, this is basic statistics. Stuff they teach freshmen. It is the essence of what it means to understand science.

You think you're a "skeptic"? Your skepticism has no value if you don't know how to assess the data even at a basic level.
 
OK, Jack, I've wasted some time to make an actual point for you. I generated this graph and ran it through R for statistics.

Rplot.jpg


Do you see the line that looks like a "slope" pointing downwards? THAT ISN'T A REAL TREND.

But it looks like a real slope downward, right? Well see that F-test value up there and specifically the "p-value". This is, at its most basic a test of if this regression is statistically significant.

The p-value is VERY HIGH meaning it is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.. It means that there's really no value to explaining the data using the LINE vs just the MEAN OF THE DATA.

This happens, statistically, through random chance. Sometimes it looks like a regression is real, but you don't really know until you run the F-test.

Now, I'm not saying that Gosselin's data is similarly NOT a real trend, I'm just saying that unless you can show me the statistical analysis of the regression I won't accept just by looking at the pretty picture.

Again, this is basic statistics. Stuff they teach freshmen. It is the essence of what it means to understand science.

You think you're a "skeptic"? Your skepticism has no value if you don't know how to assess the data even at a basic level.

Yawn. Denial. Tinfoil hat stuff.
 
[h=2]Germany’s Flagship Political Daily, FAZ: Merkel’s Meeting With Greta A “Confirmation Of Leadership Poverty”[/h]By P Gosselin on 23. August 2020
Share this...


On August 20th, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with Greta Thunberg, the post-puberty teenage climate activist who has yet to finish high school, get a college degree, move out of the house – let alone gain any work experience – but believes she is supremely qualified to tell everyone how the planet needs to be run.
It appears this nonsense is beginning to dawn on some German dailies, like the flagship Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). According to the FAZ, Merkel meeting with Greta is “a confirmation of leadership poverty”. . . .
 
Yawn. Denial. Tinfoil hat stuff.

OK, this is just a strange post. Because this is literally Statistics 101. They teach this to kids in high school. It's part of inferential statistics.

I will readily agree that time-series data is often highly autocorrelated so the more simple views of merely doing f-tests on the raw data may miss a few points, but in the end the only figure of merit related to a graph is the authors' analysis of the statistical significance of the regression.

Inferential statistics is literally the CORNERSTONE of how we interpret ANY graph of data.

If one doesn't even know the basics of science or how data is interpretted one can and will be led down the garden path. People can play you because you don't know that sometimes the "appearance" of a slope has no real meaning. You have to test the regression.

This is basic science.
 
OK, this is just a strange post. Because this is literally Statistics 101. They teach this to kids in high school. It's part of inferential statistics.

I will readily agree that time-series data is often highly autocorrelated so the more simple views of merely doing f-tests on the raw data may miss a few points, but in the end the only figure of merit related to a graph is the authors' analysis of the statistical significance of the regression.

Inferential statistics is literally the CORNERSTONE of how we interpret ANY graph of data.

If one doesn't even know the basics of science or how data is interpretted one can and will be led down the garden path. People can play you because you don't know that sometimes the "appearance" of a slope has no real meaning. You have to test the regression.

This is basic science.

There are Creationists out there with more understanding of the basics of science than this.

Yawn. The desperation of your denial is quite striking.
 
Yawn. The desperation of your denial is quite striking.

I know you don't understand what I'm saying here but you are arguing not against me but against science in general.

(And, no, I'm not denying anything. If you actually READ Post #65 you'll see that I clearly state that Gosselin could be RIGHT. He could be seeing a real trend. I just need to see some indication of statistical significance.)
 
I know you don't understand what I'm saying here but you are arguing not against me but against science in general.

(And, no, I'm not denying anything. If you actually READ Post #65 you'll see that I clearly state that Gosselin could be RIGHT. He could be seeing a real trend. I just need to see some indication of statistical significance.)

No, you're desperately trying to deny plain evidence. There's simply no mystery or deeper truth to a least squares regression line.
 
No, you're desperately trying to deny plain evidence.

I clearly stated now a couple times the graph you posted of the temperature trend could be real, but I cannot say it is until I see the statistical significance. (And neither can you! That's how science works)

There's simply no mystery or deeper truth to a least squares regression line.

Do you actually not believe me about F-tests, t-Tests, regression statistics and inferential statistics? Really? Do you think I just made up the topic for the graph I produced? Do you honestly think I just made up F-tests and t-tests?

You can verify everything I said.

Here's a great place to start:

F-test for Regression

The F-Test for Regression Analysis | by Sachin Date | Towards Data Science

Regression Slope Test

T-Test and F-Test: Fundamentals of Test Statistics - Magoosh Statistics Blog
 
Last edited:
I clearly stated now a couple times the graph you posted of the temperature trend could be real, but I cannot say it is until I see the statistical significance. (And neither can you! That's how science works)



Do you actually not believe me about F-tests, t-Tests, regression statistics and inferential statistics? Really? Do you think I just made up the topic for the graph I produced? Do you honestly think I just made up F-tests and t-tests?

You can verify everything I said.

Here's a great place to start:

F-test for Regression

The F-Test for Regression Analysis | by Sachin Date | Towards Data Science

Regression Slope Test

T-Test and F-Test: Fundamentals of Test Statistics - Magoosh Statistics Blog

I don't think you made it up. I just don't think it matters. Like I said, a least squares regression line is a least squares regression line. End of story.
 
Last edited:
Sorry. No straw men or deflections allowed.

instead of directly responding, spent some time skimming to get a feeling for the various characters on this forum to see if they are serious about discussing the topic

so ya have 90,000+ posts, and from what I gather

I'm 70 YOA and happily retired.

also noticed

You admitted you have not real scientific training apart from some intro classes.

AND

Oh, don't worry about Jack. Painting himself as the victim of some imaginary slight is his usual modus operandi when he's losing the argument. It's a typical diversionary tactic.

sigh,... to begin to understand an issue like climate change requires a basic understanding of physics, chemistry and math ALONG with a willingness to put in some effort,... given you have been on this forum for years and have 90,000+ posts (yet from what I've seen fall back upon the same old links)

[h=3]The author is the Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies.[/h][h=2]How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted[/h]
[h=2]Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct[/h]

and when someone actually bothers to take a look,... ya seeming dismiss things out right

since it appears ya don't have tech back ground AND other users of this board that noticed a pattern of sorts w/ your posts, thought I'd share one thing I learned long about S/N (i.e. "signal" to "noise" ratio) before I do some more skimming

Signal-to-noise ratio - Wikipedia

just a wild guess that the 90,000+ posts you have racked up over the years, others have picked up very little meaningful information (so a tech person would say lots of noise AND very little signal)

also FWIW something you and other perhaps might find humorous and applicable (given the issue of climate change AND a need of scientific understanding in order to put things into context)

145fc210f67e5ad20d75d568caaf57bd31f1e42c.png
 
Back
Top Bottom