Lets review this thread and see what there is to apologize for.
JLowe: #16900 - October 31, 2006 05:19 PM
Hmm no idea how monte carlo simulations has anything at all to do with temperature analysis
If you are going to statistically analyse temperature data, you do not need monte carlo simulations.
JLowe: #16911 - November 01, 2006 05:19 PM
I do know about Monte Carlo Simulation. I actually use Monte Carlo Simulations in my work all the time, almost every day. I studied them in one of my 8-9 years at university studying statistics and the analysis of data.
Yes that is correct. I use monte carlo simulations all the time, so much so that I know that they are not necessary for a statistical analysis of temperature data. What's your point here?
Count Iblis / #16921 - November 13, 2006 12:01 PM As long as the measured temperature increase of 0.6? C +/- 0.2 ?C per century falls within your confidence interval, your results are worthless. You could only have detected a statistically significant temperature increase with your limited amount of data if Australia had warmed up at five times the rate of the rest of the world.
Completly not true, in fact Count doesn't really know what he's talking about here. We could throw out the entire scientific method and conclude that the world is going to increase at a certain temperature irrespective if the result is insignificant and there is no significant evidence to suggest that it is. But hey, lets just say it is.
As far as him saying that we would have to have an increase 5 times the amount to obtain significance, this is also completly false. In fact using a simulation (note not for analysing temp data, but to prove count wrong), the last post here shows a very significant result from just a 0.5 degree increase per year:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23336&page=3&highlight=JonathanLoweAnd lets just hypothetically say that count was right (even though he isn't), is he suggesting that we should ignore the scientific method solely because we don't have enough data? Should we spend godzillions on information which has limited data that is interpreted completly wrong?
JLowe: #16923 - November 13, 2006 08:03 PM
the fact that you say I am "lacking in credibility in climatology". This is true
Taken out of context. I do not have a degree in climatology, however am very qualified in statistics (you seem to have amzingly forgotton that on another thread?), which is as we discussed the best qualification to have when analysing temperature data.
JLowe: #16928 - November 15, 2006 10:32 AM
... thru my PhD in statistical analysis of climate science.
Nothing there, pigs still can't fly, and hell has yet to freeze over. Perhaps you should consider an apology for lying about having a PhD in climate science.
Huh? I never have said that I have completed a PhD. I'm sorry, your comments in attempt to prove that I have contradicted myself have failed. You in fact have only made yourself look completly incompatent. I pity you.
And on you:
You first attempt to discredit me, unsuccessfully with no proof. You claim that I have crossed the line into pseudo-science with no proof of this what-so-ever. Furthermore when questioned on your comment you refuse to reply. It is quite obvious to me and to all reading that you simply made up this judgment solely to appease your point of view.
You said that I manipulated data with no proof what-so-ever of me doing so. Once again, your unsubstantiated claim is wrong. You don't have a good track record here do you?
You challenged me to provide details of my academic record, because you had serious doubt of it, quite possibly because my results disagreed with your thought pattern. You lost this challenge as well.
