count I agree with you in part,
firstly, I agree that we should stop bantering about academic records and things like this, however please note that I am not bantering about this but rather defending myself from Morgans completely false and unsubstantiated accusations. These only occur because he has no scientific and reasonable argument against my findings. I applaud you for your reasoned response.
Secondly, I have not claimed that Australia is not warming at the rate of the rest of the world. Never have. Mainly because I have not tested the rate of which the rest of the world has apparently warmed.
I understand how hypothesis testing works, and I have said that there is no evidence to prove that Australia is increasing or decreasing in temperature, which is the correct conclusion to draw from such testing.
"Your objection seems to be that this is contrary to the scientific method."
No my objection was that if you see an increase of 0.6 degrees per century then you should not claim that the world is heating up if the 0.6 degree increase is not statistically significant. Whilst confidence intervals are more appealing, and probably more meaningful for a lay-statistician, it basically says the same thing as the p value. I'm sorry if I have only quoted p values in the past, but this is the common practise of statisticians, however as said before they are one and the same.
"I'm not an expert in data analysis and I don't know a lot about how the trend of 0.6 ?C per century was measured."
This is very interesting. The data was calculated from maximum and minimum temperatures only. Such analysis I believe is flawed because it allowed the variable time, to, well, vary. An analysis at certain times of the day, hence keeping time constant would far be better, but this has yet to be done for some unknown reason??
Furthermore, the method of which it is analysed is hardly in depth. The maximum and minimum temperatures are basically added up and divided by 2 to find the average daily temperature.
This I am afraid is nowhere near substantial, and is basically one of the major reasons why I entered the area - because of the complete lack of proper statistical analysis into the temperature data.
As for your comments about different stations. We look at the overall picture, not individual stations. SO we don?t conclude, no increase at station #1, and #2 etc. By looking overall, we increase the data, and get a more realistic view of the world (or Australia in my case). Even if Australia in general was increasing by 0.6 degrees per century, there would probably be evidence that half the stations had not increased significantly in temperature, but this is not what we are looking at. We are looking at the overall temperature of Australia.
It is just, seriously, it is absurd to me, that my statistical analysis of Australia?s temperatures is more in depth than any peer-reviewed journal paper, and yet, as Morgan so fondly says, it's just a blog.
How can the world spend billions of dollars on fixing a problem, if a blog can provide more in depth statistical analysis of Australia?s temperatures than any and all peer-reviewed journal articles on the matter.
