Sinclair Davidson and Alex Robson of the Australian Financial Review agree with me that there is no statistical significance to prove that humans are the cause of increased temperatures.
Tim Labert, in his rebuttal of their article also concludes that
A larger data set means that smaller effects will be statistically significant, so it is possibly that an effect could be statistically significant but so small that it is not practically significant. Furthermore, if a test does not achieve a specified confidence level, it does not falsify the hypothesis -- all you can say is that there is insufficient data to draw a conclusion.
So thanks Lambert in saying that we don't have enough data to draw a conclusion. Unfortunately as proven by me previously, we do, and the result is still insignificant.
3 comments:
Nonsensical propaganda.
Also, one has to wonder how it could be that a few layperson's articles in some financial journal and on personal blogs could cast doubt on the works of thousands of independent scientists in the minds of some people.
if you honestly think that it is thousands of independent scientists as the IPCC claim, well then you are only kidding yourself.
but one thing is for sure is that the 90% is a purely made up number and not statistically calculated.
I agree that the 90% is just a made up number.
Post a Comment