Comments on: Grading the IPCC Forecasts http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:51:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: TCO http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-406 TCO Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:06:13 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html#comment-406 <p>In ADDITION to the concern of volatility versus trend (from before), there is a question as to the change is expected to be broadly linear or increasing in rate over the century period.</p> In ADDITION to the concern of volatility versus trend (from before), there is a question as to the change is expected to be broadly linear or increasing in rate over the century period.

]]> By: TCO http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-405 TCO Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:02:38 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html#comment-405 <p>If you can't describe it with numbers, it's not science. Come on. Drop the McKinsey lying with charts and actually analyze an issue instead of trying to prove a day one hypothesis (i.e. bias).</p> If you can’t describe it with numbers, it’s not science. Come on. Drop the McKinsey lying with charts and actually analyze an issue instead of trying to prove a day one hypothesis (i.e. bias).

]]> By: TCO http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-404 TCO Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:58:09 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html#comment-404 <p>Helllloooooo! </p> <p>What, no answer? Crappy, crappy science...</p> Helllloooooo!

What, no answer? Crappy, crappy science…

]]> By: TCO http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-403 TCO Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:23:08 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html#comment-403 <p>Helloooooo! Anyone home there!?!? </p> Helloooooo! Anyone home there!?!?

]]> By: TCO http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-402 TCO Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:28:03 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html#comment-402 <p>Given the inherent variability of temperature (including the autocorrelation) what does this "failure to meet a prediction" mean statistically (in terms of a hypothesis test)? If we looked ONE YEAR OUT, would a failure or a success mean anything? So what does it mean 17 years out?</p> <p>If we don't define it mathematically, we are just showing pretty pictures and laughing at it. Please, don't reply that the "other side does it". Just answer the question. </p> Given the inherent variability of temperature (including the autocorrelation) what does this “failure to meet a prediction” mean statistically (in terms of a hypothesis test)? If we looked ONE YEAR OUT, would a failure or a success mean anything? So what does it mean 17 years out?

If we don’t define it mathematically, we are just showing pretty pictures and laughing at it. Please, don’t reply that the “other side does it”. Just answer the question.

]]> By: Mesa Econoguy http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-401 Mesa Econoguy Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:29:27 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html#comment-401 <p></a>Sorry, Here’s the better quote:</p> <p>“Except in limited circumstances, funds also must include a table that sets forth returns-both before and after taxes-for the past 1-, 5-, and 10-year periods.”</p> <p>http://www.sec.gov/answers/mfprospectustips.htm </p> <p>No climate model, IPCC or otherwise, has ever adhered to this criterion.<br /> </p> Sorry, Here’s the better quote:

“Except in limited circumstances, funds also must include a table that sets forth returns-both before and after taxes-for the past 1-, 5-, and 10-year periods.”

http://www.sec.gov/answers/mfprospectustips.htm

No climate model, IPCC or otherwise, has ever adhered to this criterion.

]]> By: Mesa Econoguy http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-400 Mesa Econoguy Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:14:38 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/grading-the-i-1.html#comment-400 <p>This is blatant confirmation of biased statistical stupidity, which is legally prohibited in virtually every single other professional field, including and especially investments:</p> <p>1) Past performance is not an indicator of future returns, and </p> <p>2) Simple investments: </p> <p>“The fee table includes an example that will help you compare costs among different funds by showing you the costs associated with investing a hypothetical $10,000 over a 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year period.”</p> <p><a href="http://www.sec.gov/answers/mfprospectustips.htm" rel="nofollow"> </p> <p>This constitutes fraud, is highly prosecutable, and should result in jail terms for those who predict fraudulent returns. Or atmospheric volatility.</p> <p>Signed,</p> <p>I would be more than happy to be a statistical expert witness to put climate “scientists” in jail.<br /> </p> This is blatant confirmation of biased statistical stupidity, which is legally prohibited in virtually every single other professional field, including and especially investments:

1) Past performance is not an indicator of future returns, and

2) Simple investments:

“The fee table includes an example that will help you compare costs among different funds by showing you the costs associated with investing a hypothetical $10,000 over a 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year period.”

This constitutes fraud, is highly prosecutable, and should result in jail terms for those who predict fraudulent returns. Or atmospheric volatility.

Signed,

I would be more than happy to be a statistical expert witness to put climate “scientists” in jail.

]]>