Right you are again Clifford. Truth is, there is absolutely nothing
controversial about my post--it is exactly as stated by the IPCC--many
people don't realize that a range from X to Y means X is just as
probably as Y--there is no need to pick either endpoint as 'more'
probable than the other. I could have just as easily said "IPCC 2001:
Greenhouse gas warming 10% UNLIKELY", which would have been an
_equally_ valid statement. In other words we have a 1-in-3 (best) case
or 1-in-10 (worse) case that there is no anthropogenic global warming,
according to the (biased) IPCC, with a (typical) 95% confidence. Yet
another reason not to panic over GW.

As for the regulars here--they are polemicists like myself but with one
critical difference--I have stated I am a 'useful troll', that I have
an open mind about GW (I doubt it is real, but I am open to
suggestion), and agree that for policy reasons we should tax gasoline
to encourage transition faster to nuclear, solar and clean coal and the
like. By contrast, my critics, RC, CB, LP, Dan etc (mostly
non-scientists, typical is CB--who I think is a girl) are rabid eco-nut
fanatics--on-line cyber eco-terrorists, who have a "cult-like"
mentality, refusing to consider alternative scenarios. The only mantra
they chant, like the Buddha worshipping RC, is "The IPCC said AGW=GW so
we must stop all human activity (and roll over and die)". This
nihilism is popular in Asian religions and cults, and resonates with
these Neo-Club of Rome doomsdayers.

Small wonder the 'real world' has all but forgetten about GW after a
few years in the spotlight. And once a recession hits, it will be
forgotten faster. Shame, because if presented intelligently, a good
case can be made that we need to think about (not necessarily act, just
think about) transitioning out of fossil fuels--and GW is a good
'excuse' to do this (the actual impact of GW remains to be seen, and
many reports indeed say the USA will do better with a small temperature
increase). Nuclear (fission then fusion) is the obvious choice over
fossil fuels. But post "3 Mile Island" nuclear is (wrongly) taboo in
the US, so perhaps GW is a good Trojan Horse to reintroduce America to
the benefits of nuclear, as the French already know. We will wait and
see. One thing is for sure--it's much too early to act just yet.

Cheers,
RL



Clifford wrote:

RL,
And none of the regulars could disprove you! just call you names. That shows
EXACTLY where they stand. Smear and discredit the messenger rather than deal
with the COLD hard FACTS.

Clifford

No, you take the median.

Lloyd--take (or retake) Stats 101. You clearly flunked. You know
nothing about confidence intervals.

Go here moron:

http://www.cas.lancs.ac.uk/glossary_v1.1/confint.html
"The width of the confidence interval gives us some idea about how
uncertain we are about the unknown parameter (see precision). A very
wide interval may indicate that more data should be collected before
anything very definite can be said about the parameter." --so shiite
for brains, what does the IPCC "likely" confidence interval of '66% to
90%' say about how definite "likely" is, according to the IPCC? I'll
spell it out for you, retard: it means the IPCC is not that confident
about "likely".

And you call yourself a science major? What an idiot.

RL

Lloyd Parker wrote:

How do we come up with this figure? Easy: the IPCC said that "likely"
is defined as the probability falling between 66-90%. As any student of
statistics knows or should know (Roger pay attention this is directed
to you), each and every point between a statistical range such as the
above is EQUALLY PROBABLE to be true. Thus when a study says
temperatures will rise by 1.5C - 5C (for example) when CO2 levels
double means temperatures can just as easily rise 1.5C as they can rise
5C (or anything inbetween). You cannot pick one endpoint as more
probable than the other.

No, you take the median.

In article .com,
"raylopez99" wrote:
No, you take the median.

Lloyd--take (or retake) Stats 101. You clearly flunked. You know
nothing about confidence intervals.

Go here moron:

http://www.cas.lancs.ac.uk/glossary_v1.1/confint.html
"The width of the confidence interval gives us some idea about how
uncertain we are about the unknown parameter (see precision). A very
wide interval may indicate that more data should be collected before
anything very definite can be said about the parameter." --so shiite
for brains, what does the IPCC "likely" confidence interval of '66% to
90%' say about how definite "likely" is, according to the IPCC? I'll
spell it out for you, retard: it means the IPCC is not that confident
about "likely".

And you call yourself a science major? What an idiot.


Look at a normal distribution. Look at the height of the curve in the center
vs out at the 95% limits. If needed, get a 12-year old to explain it to you.

RL

Lloyd Parker wrote:

How do we come up with this figure? Easy: the IPCC said that "likely"
is defined as the probability falling between 66-90%. As any student of
statistics knows or should know (Roger pay attention this is directed
to you), each and every point between a statistical range such as the
above is EQUALLY PROBABLE to be true. Thus when a study says
temperatures will rise by 1.5C - 5C (for example) when CO2 levels
double means temperatures can just as easily rise 1.5C as they can rise
5C (or anything inbetween). You cannot pick one endpoint as more
probable than the other.

No, you take the median.

In article .com,
"raylopez99" wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article .com,
"raylopez99" wrote:
No, you take the median.

Lloyd--take (or retake) Stats 101. You clearly flunked. You know
nothing about confidence intervals.

And you call yourself a science major? What an idiot.


Look at a normal distribution. Look at the height of the curve in the
center
vs out at the 95% limits. If needed, get a 12-year old to explain it to
you.


Hey Lloyd-- sorry I called you a moron. I apologize. I usually
reserve words like that for people who are somewhat my equals in
smarts. Clearly you are disadvantaged and I don't want to seem like
I'm picking on you.

FYI confidence interval is not the same as normal distribution, though
there is a nexus. Confidence limit says that you fill find "X" within
a certain range--here X is that greenhouse gas warming is "likely".
The IPCC 2001 report said X falls within the range 66% to 90%, so 1-X
(the converse) is in the range 10% to 33%. X is usually given a
confidence of either 95% or 99%. At 99% the range will be bigger than
at 95%. At a lower than 95% confidence the range will be smaller.


The data must have some kind of distribution. Large data sets usually
approximate a normal distribution. Even if they don't, the extremes of a data
set are almost always less likely than data closer to the center.

You can also write X as 78% +- 12. This is perhaps what confused you.
It does not mean however that X is 78% likely. What it means is that
with 95% probability you will find X somewhere between 78% plus or
minus 12%, or a range of 66% to 90%, as I stated.

And you could say x will be between -infinity and +infinity with 100%
certainty. So?


It is also true that
you can say there is a 66% chance X is true, with 95% probability. If
you narrow the range (to say 78% plus or minus 1% your confidence will
actually decrease and the probability that you will find X in this
narrow range will decrease. That's why the IPCC cast a wide net--they
are not that confident that greenhouse gas warming is "likely" at a
narrow confidence interval, so they made the band wider.

Anyway I've already spent too much time on this thread. Educate
yourself and good luck (dumbo, snicker snicker).

RL

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article .com,
"raylopez99" wrote:
No, you take the median.

Lloyd--take (or retake) Stats 101. You clearly flunked. You know
nothing about confidence intervals.

And you call yourself a science major? What an idiot.


Look at a normal distribution. Look at the height of the curve in the center
vs out at the 95% limits. If needed, get a 12-year old to explain it to you.


Hey Lloyd-- sorry I called you a moron. I apologize. I usually
reserve words like that for people who are somewhat my equals in
smarts. Clearly you are disadvantaged and I don't want to seem like
I'm picking on you.

FYI confidence interval is not the same as normal distribution, though
there is a nexus. Confidence limit says that you fill find "X" within
a certain range--here X is that greenhouse gas warming is "likely".
The IPCC 2001 report said X falls within the range 66% to 90%, so 1-X
(the converse) is in the range 10% to 33%. X is usually given a
confidence of either 95% or 99%. At 99% the range will be bigger than
at 95%. At a lower than 95% confidence the range will be smaller.

You can also write X as 78% +- 12. This is perhaps what confused you.
It does not mean however that X is 78% likely. What it means is that
with 95% probability you will find X somewhere between 78% plus or
minus 12%, or a range of 66% to 90%, as I stated. It is also true that
you can say there is a 66% chance X is true, with 95% probability. If
you narrow the range (to say 78% plus or minus 1% your confidence will
actually decrease and the probability that you will find X in this
narrow range will decrease. That's why the IPCC cast a wide net--they
are not that confident that greenhouse gas warming is "likely" at a
narrow confidence interval, so they made the band wider.

Anyway I've already spent too much time on this thread. Educate
yourself and good luck (dumbo, snicker snicker).

RL