As you can imagine, the wailing and gnashing of teeth commenced immediately afterwards. A Mr. Plait whined in response. And a Mr. Briggs responded to Plait’s whine. Anthony posted about it. Some loon stated that Tammy had a post about Briggs’ post about Plait’s response to the WSJ fellows. Got it?
Now, Briggs is one of those statistician people. (Their perspective is a bit different than normal folk) Plait presented an insipid SkS graph in an attempt to refute the WSJ fellows. Briggs went on to explain about things like averaging, modeling, start points, trends and the like. It’s some decent spankage and an easy read. Tammy takes exception to this. He then writes a nonsensical post which entirely misses the point. Leaving us with the eternal question of, are they really that dumb or are they being intentionally deceptive? One never really knows. Briggs goes over to comment. Tammy posts it, but editorializes in the comment. Basically, he interjects “wrong” between Briggs’ thoughts with no explanation or reasoning as to why he thinks its wrong.
So, I write this……
Lol, you know what is astounding? The hubris of alarmists believing they know more about trending, estimates, averaging, and modeling than a statistician.
Briggs comments, and you just state, “wrong”, but you don’t state why he’s wrong. And he’s not wrong. Did you see any error bars on that graph? I sure didn’t. But then, I’ve often thought alarmists see a different world than reality.
But, more to the point, this is a bunch of hand-waving. The posit challenged by Plait was that there hasn’t been any warming for over a decade or so. And, there hasn’t. Using the same methodology that went into SkS’ graph is the same that shows there hasn’t been any recent warming. So, you object to Briggs evaluation of the methodology, but you also object to what the people of the WSJ piece stated. Well, which is it?
After several minutes in moderation hell, the poor comment vanished forever……… almost. Gosh, these guys are fun to play with!
What the WSJ fellows had stated was that there hadn’t been any warming in over a decade. Such a radical concept. ……. how could they have ever come to that conclusion?