You need to understand the system your are looking at and the different metrics for measuring it. Science matters too. ]]>

The point of statistics IS to draw conclusions from incomplete data, that’s all we ever do

In this case the conclusion is: Based on available data, the case for catastrophic AGW appears much weaker than many claim. That’s not a strong claim, but it’s not a meaningless one.

One more note this post is now over 4 years old, even though that’s not a huge amount of additional data (relative to the cumulative past), it’s time to redo the analysis and include the most recent data.

]]>Even so, you admit “Clearly, temperatures have risen since the 1880s. Also, volatility in temperature changes has increased.” You seem to have drawn conclusions with far from complete data. Interesting exercise, but generally meaningless.

]]>Never the less, the standard hypothesis test answers the question quite simply.

The hypothesis is, given the variance about the mean rate of change, does this mean rate of change differ from zero sufficiently to conclude that it is highly unlikely to be zero.

A linear regression is done and the p-value is calculated for the slope coefficient. This is compared to a random distribution centered about zero and the probability of getting a value as extreme is calculated. Generally, we take 95%/2 or 99%/2 as our alpha (it’s a one sided test.)

And, in fact, the slope is large enough, given the variance, that it is highly unlikely to be the result of a random distribution about zero.

]]>For example, suppose that in the next hundred years there’s a one in a million chance we get hit by a humanity ending asteroid. That’s a way worse outcome than a 4 degree temperature rise. What if we uncover some other threat we believe to have a one in 900,000 chance of wiping out humanity? Should we take all our resources and devote them to that risk instead? But wait, there’s really no such thing as “our resources”, only resources owned (or controlled) by various people and entities. If the only way to get every nation to reduce CO2 emissions by half results in a heightened risk of global war (another way worse consequence than a 4 degree rise), should we go forward anyway? The unknown risks of radical change (especially change that forcibly reduces living standards by making energy much more expensive), could be **much** higher than the risk of man-made global warming.

The IPCC and AGW scientists state this by claiming all the other possible things that affect temperature cancel each other out.

Even then they admit doubling CO2 alone cannot increase temperature by 2C but will achieve this by affecting changes in water vapour, cloud and other creation of “hot spot” mumbo jumbo.

Fail. ]]>

This smells like a PR guy being paid to post nonsense.

]]>