XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.atheism   
   From: jtem01@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/11/26 4:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:   
      
   > What you are doing is nonsense.  Consider a car that is speeding up,   
   > albeit, slowly, over time; first, by accelerating, and then, by   
   > decelerating.  If you just look at   
      
   So why don't we just throw all the bullshit away & look at the   
   Medieval Warm Period? It took place during historic time -- we   
   have written records -- but prior to the industrial revolution.   
      
   It's warmer.   
      
   CO2 is lower.   
      
   AND THEN it got cold! Fast!  It was called "The Little Ice Age.   
      
   But, NOWHERE IN ANY OF THE AGW IDIOCY is there any accounting   
   for this cold period ending!   
      
   Why?   
      
   Oo!  And there was also the "Roman Warm Period."   
      
   In fact, the climate isn't stagnant throughout the entire   
   history of the Holocene except...   
      
   Except in AGW idiocy, SUDDENLY and with no explanation what   
   so ever you insist that the Little Ice Age was supposed to   
   be permanent -- no more fluctuations in the climate -- it   
   had to stay COLD or else that meant mankind was warming   
   everything up with CO2.   
      
   Why?   
      
   It's idiotic. You'd have to be a blithering idiot to not   
   question it, yet you refuse to entertain any question what so   
   ever.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   the derivatives of the car's velocity   
   > (it's acceleration), you have no null hypothesis that you can test   
   > against, as it is not falsifiable.  (The overall change in accelerations   
   > is just too small!  And yet, the car *is* speeding up!)  A better test   
   > would be just to look at the car's velocity over time, which you can   
   > plot and then test the regression coefficient to see that you have a   
   > non-horizontal line!!   
   >   
   > Consider another experiment; you, as an investigator, wish to test the   
   > hypothesis that little children are taller with their shoes on as   
   > opposed to having their shoes off.  As so, you take the measurements for   
   > each child, before & after, and then put your results in a 2-sample t   
   > test, and Voilà!, you get a negative result (a p-value > 0.05).  As   
   > such, you fail to reject the null hypothesis, concluding, that little   
   > children are not taller with their shoes on as compared with their shoes   
   > off.   
   >   
   > Of course, in statistical analysis, if there is a cardinal sin (besides,   
   > "correlation versus causation"), it is using a weaker test when a   
   > stronger one is available.  And, so, for the above example, it would be   
   > much more appropriate to use a paired t-test, as each of your   
   > observations would be dependent (as opposed to independent) due to the   
   > fact that your before & after measurements would be with respect to the   
   > same kiddo!   
   >   
   > Dawn   
      
      
   --   
   https://jtem.tumblr.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)