Delano

Can you tell me the probability of getting 75 heads out of 100 throws. And what formula would you use.

They were mentioned prior to your post.

Wow

Here you go, explain how this example is correct. Not how you are using it like a parable, and you didn't really think about the numbers.Or even better can you compute the probability in each example and tell me the name of the test you use to compare two means. On 5/21/2013 at 9:50 PM, Troy said: Pioneer your points all ASSUME that there is indeed a spiritual world. One could easily argue the opposite using your very same reasoning. Del, a horse has a tail but that does not make it a mouse because a mouse has a tail. That aside what is logical about Astrology? On my 3rd point, if you flipped a coin 100 times and got heads 75 times it would be false for you to say there is a 75% chance of getting heads on a coin toss -- even if you flipped the coin under some tarot or astrologically defined conditions. The reason is the likelihood of me flipping a coin 100 times and getting the same result, without consulting tarot card or astrological charts is very possible. Sure you can flip the coin 1,000 time and get marginally better results but it would still not be enough data. It would be better If you got 10,000 people to flip the coin 1,000 times under the tarot conditions and different set of 10,000 people to flip a coin under random conditions. If you compared the results between the two sets of people under those conditions and found a significant variance you might have something. Especially if someone else was able to reproduce your experiment and get the same results. You can't do this by yourself.

If you don't understand what you're being told then yiu haven't acquired knowledge. So if you believe that is a fundamental difference. Did you even read the 10 pros and cons. I'll find the post and comment.

I said the following before your post. So You can argue an uninformed position a well informed position or anything in between. Quoting experts is neither. You also stated that i don't have more time than you or anyone else. Can you put 40 hours into learning about the data. So we can discuss it or are you to busy. You either skim the links i post or you don't read them at all. Have a read of the 10 pros and cons of climate change.

All discussions here are opinions and beliefs. When it comes to books and publishing you have an expert opinion. It is your field and you love it. And I probably defer to your judgement experience and knowledge. My field is astrology and the same dynamic applies. Statistica is my hobby. And you reference statistics, despite your mathematical ability you dont have a good handle on it. Years ago you were making an argument using probability. It was wrong. You cant admit that I have a better grasp on statistics. We met when you were in Graduate School. I worked in the computer lab. 25 years ago. I don't recall you needing my assistance. I am not an evolutionist. So in this instance I have to accept expert opinion. I will attempt to explain my opinion again. I don't have an expert opinin on climate change. I also am not a degreed statistician. I have been studying and practising statistics off and on since 1982. Mathematics and statistics are different fields. Engineering and mathematics are cousins. I am more democratic about knowledge than you. You sre probably mistaken believing that climate scientist all know statistics. The 97% is among clinate scientist that believe in man made global warming. That percentage is less than 5%. But check that mumber it may actually be .5%. McDonald's use to say there patties were 100 percent beef. Which is different than all 100% beef. So some percentage let's say 70% is beef. And the 70% is all beef. A little thinking will also maje this clear. When you make a hamburger you add seasoning and spices. I am nit slighting your mental ability i am trying to provoke you to think independently. You don't feel qualified to take a publuc stance because yiu don't know. I don't know either but i can reason and make compelling arguments based on tbe numbers. Most people have not looked at the underpinning data. Either because of lack of interest, ability and inaccessibility of the data. That opaqueness is intentional to further an agenda to continue to receive grant money. Although there msy be some percentage that believe what they are doing is yhe right thing. I am always suspicious of self-righteous people. Since they seem to embody the opposite of what they publicly embody. Saddly there msy be be an expert lurker. Who could explain the errors in both of our opinions. But until that time it is you and I. No the fundamental difference is I have looked at the raw data. The rest us opinion conjecture and inference.

I keep trying to expand the conversation beyond what you think I believe or know. To think for yourself. I even posted a site where the pros and cons are debated. They are lying just like the oil sponsored reseach because of the money. And when their forecasts are shown to be all wrong. For the reasons that I mentioned. I may not be smarter than a while lot of people but its really hard to fool me using numbers. You are asking the wrong question. It's not whether i am smarter? Is my analysis sound? Causality is difficult to isolate. What i want is for you to elevate your argument. Why would they lie is a good question. How accurate are the models? Is there a link and is it static over time? Who are the dissenters? Those are good questions.

Here's quotes frim scientist on both sides. Debating the issue. http://climatechange.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001445

[3]Multiple analyses of peer-reviewed science literature have repeatedly shown that more than 97 percent of scientists in the field agree that the world is unequivocally warming, and that human activity is the primary. What this says is climate change scientist not all scienctist. Yet you believe it is all scientists. Here's a thousand scientists , that agree with me. http://climatechange.procon.org/#con-01 Here's a thousand scientists , that agree with me. This site discusses t hybrid e pros and cons. http://climatechange.procon.org/#con-01

Troy can you interpret any of the data? Not being able to do so doesn't make you stupid. However not being able to do so and saying I can't does make you stupid.

This is a brilliant book about visual information. https://www.visualcinnamon.com/resources/learning-data-visualization/books

Troy I'll state my point. Most people whether they agree or disagree haven't thought about the issue critically. I'll use an analogy to explain the difference. The movie hidden colors. You stated your opinion and what you thought about the movie. You didn't tell me what movie critics thought. You are reverse projecting. You have repeatedly said the following that i can't know more than the scientist. You questioned my ability to have an informed opinion. You even said a little knowledge was dangerous. So i stated in detail what i taught myself about weather. And i also bought in expert testimony. A PhD professor from NYU, The PhD Quantitative Analyst and Head of Research at Shearson Lehman, And the writer of a university statistics book. So I can read statistics, no matter the subject matter. Note that work/project/ statements were in the following areas: finance; Managent Theory and audience participation. I have only studied finance on the graduate level. You studying engineering and and having an MBA are relevant if you can't debate the material without relying on expert opinion. In Science there's peer review. Here's another point. Those against dont attack the data because they have a vestes interest. If you were thinking yiu would also realize. That the supporters alsi have a vested financial interest. Am i smarter than climate scientists or their detractors. The answer is i don't know. I analyse mumbers. And I think critically and come to a conclusion. I cant tell you how many hours i spent trying to both find data and have some understanding of weather. Also i spent several hours trying to find the methodology and raw data . Not only have i studied statistics i have read The Visual Display of Quantitative Informatio by Edward Tufte. Which also shiws how graphical information can be misleading. Again I am not looking for neither disagreement or agreement. I am looking for critical thought. Which is not the same as saying i don't understand so I'll defer to expert opinion. You debated Obama effectiveness without using expert opinion you said what you thought. Granted your opinion weren't well informed by political news but you still had a position. So I am not engaging in a penis measuring contest. I sm doing what i generally do. Ask people to think and look at their assumptions. I have a lit of free time. Not many people have that luxury you don't. Most people have neither the time nor inclination to think critically. I have a curiousity do i don't just accept expert opinion. So when it comes to thinkng for myself I am an Omega level alpha. My favourite scientist and or mathematicians are independent thinkers even in their fields. Newton Einstein and Feynmann. Richard Feynmann is my favourite. He worked with other physicist pn developing the bomb. He also solved the Challenger disaster but not following the protocols that NASA tried to put on his investigation. He was one if the youngest physicist. But was put in charge of a team of more experienced physicists. He said no these other physicists had more experience. His supervisor said yes but if you think donething is wrong you won't back down. You can argue an uninformed position a well informed position or anything in between. Quoting experts is neither. No you have missed my point. It's about thinking about climate change. Quoting others is not the same as discussing. Sure i coykd say your interpretation is wrong. Isn't this a discussion board. Can you independently think about climate change. Read what Dr Theon says he agrees with all of my points. I had included the link which you haven't read. Troy your a busy guy. You have neither the time nor the interest to put in the hours needed.

You are totally missing my point. I want to discuss the data. That didn't happen. So yeah this is a good stopping point.

Try searching for African American Scientist and Mathematicians. I am sure there are associations.

Our body of knowledge would be broader. If there were less institutional barriers in society in general and education specifically.

@Troy I can't really take you seriously. I say let's discuss it. You get offended when i suggest you don't understand the graphs. You say you have an MBA and and engineering degree. Then you say you can read it but you can't interpret it. Then you basically say i am not a climate scientists and you don't have any knowledge of my statistical ability. I describe my methodology in setting up the model . The experts have Never posted a model. There are more than 20 forecasts by various agencies. None of which forecast all of the variables of temperature with statistical significance. That is in that 222 page document . I say find one actual regression model. Just one that these projections are based. You say you trust the experts over me. GISS is a NASA branch in New York. Is the source of temperature data. The director has been adjusting the data. And I post an article from Forbes which states this. The article has a quote from Dr John S Theon (check his credentials ) who disagrees with adjusting the raw data. He then goes on to say. That the various forecast are not transparent and they dont show the underlinig data. He also says weather is too complicated to model. I have no idea of your numerical ability. But based on your statements throughout the years. You cant interpret statistical information. I am a statistics hobbyist. Who spent $1000 in 1999 on Statistica a PC software package. In my library i had three different types of statistics books. I tutored statistics for years in undergraduate circa 1982-1986. And was hired by an NYU professor to interpret a study circa 1991. Which lead to a job where I interpreted a million cell matrix. My findings on that project were acknowledged by a PhD who literally wrote a university text book on statistics. I get annoyed when someone doesn't understand my subject matter. And says I'm wrong. Take a statistics refresher course check out the massive two volume book How to Present Visual Data. When you think you're ready lets discuss the data. Because the data tells a story. If you are statistically literate. You have data not information. Data + knowledge = Information. So your opinion is an uninformed one. And not capable of critically discussing the subject matter. You don't have time to learn statistics. You don't even have time to read my posted links. I will discuss regression models with anyone who is competent. Find someone who is competent.

Black Numbers. I am personally more partial to Numbers written in Black than written with white ink.

https://au.pinterest.com/pin/488499890809029461/

Thanks MEl I am familiar with his story. I am currently reading the Man who loved only Numbers.Paul Erdos K. Srinivasa Rao has said,[109] "As for his place in the world of Mathematics, we quote Bruce C. Berndt: 'Paul Erdős has passed on to us Hardy's personal ratings of mathematicians. Suppose that we rate mathematicians on the basis of pure talent on a scale from 0 to 100, Hardy gave himself a score of 25, J. E. Littlewood 30, David Hilbert 80 and Ramanujan 100.'"

My lane is thinking for myself. You have made it clear where you're at. @Mel Hopkins The Big Bang Theory phrase was coined by the Steady State Scientist. Steady State Scientists believed that the universe always existed. The came up with the phrase Big Bang because ot sounds silly and somewhat sexual. The Steady State Scientist were proven wrong. Why are climate changers so rabid and resistant to debate. Follow the money. BTW in mathematics amateur have also made contributions to the body of knowledge. @Mel Hopkins The Big Bang Theory phrase was coined by the Steady State Scientist. Steady State Scientists believed that the universe always existed. The came up with the phrase Big Bang because ot sounds silly and somewhat sexual. The Steady State Scientist were proven wrong. Why are climate changers so rabid and resistant to debate. Follow the money. BTW in mathematics amateur have also made contributions to the body of knowledge.

Troy I bet you posted it without even looking at the data. Because the first thing it says is some of the data is missing. @Mel Hopkins it could be cycles. That are tens of thousands of years long. I don't have that data. My informed opinion is that the numbers don't support the argument. And using 30 years of adjusted data is not science its propaganda. However we should reduce emissions. Since an ecosystem is robust up to a point.

@Mel Hopkins I wanted to decide for myself. I thought that I would look at the statistical model. Since the scientist keep mentioning the projections. I couldn't find one. I looked in reports from Australia, the United States and the UK. Nothing. That was at least five years ago. I had a look the other day. The models aren't shown just their projections and adjustment of the variables. There are about 20 different models only a handful have significant projections. The significant projects are high lighted in red. There isnt one model that has a significant number across all the drivers of weather. So they cherry pick the numbers from rhe 20 models and make that the composite. Since I couldn't find the non-existent model. I decided to create my own. Temperature and climate are different. Getting average temperature is also complicated not just because of location and seasonal differences over time (some regions not only have different seasons the times wuth varying lengths (which makes comparisons difficult )) but there are different ways of taking the temperature: Air, Ocean, ground, high altitude, just above the ground, there may be more but I can't remember. Then i had to read about the drivers for weather: Solar output, Wind, clouds, volcanic activity, again there are others but i can't remember. The hardest thing to predict is wind movement which also effects cloud movement. There are different levels of wind currents. Which is why you will notice that some clouds are stationary while others are moving at a fast clip. Also Volcanoes spew smoke that's miles long that blocks the suns rays. Then i had to find an output measure. That was in use from 1750 to 1980. So i used a few proxies. GDP GNP , i think tried fuel usage but the data wasn't sufficient. Then CO2 emissions which did go back to 1750. But i couldn't find the methodology. So i created the model. A few things struck me as odd. There aren't any spikes in carbon emissions. The industrial revolution had legendary pollution yet no spike in emissions. Also if it is due to production it should drop when economic activity slows. Even if there's a lag you should see a drop. Finally emissions tracked better to population than production. Which leads me to believe that emissions is a formula not a measurement. Recently i found out that all of the projections are based on 1980 - 2005 data. Which may have been altered by GISS in New York from 1980 onwards. GISS is a division of NASA. I believe I also saw an article that said weather on other planets in our solar system was more extreme. But i can't find that either. At the time i tried to present some of my arguments for discussion. People just parroted what they read, without thinking about it. And the people who thought it wasn't man made couldn't discuss it either. I give th same challenge five years later. There are twenty models show me one regression formula.

@Troy @Mel Hopkins @Cynique @Pioneer1 Apparently you can't trust NASA to provide accurate data since 1980. Interesting how 1980 seems to be an important year. For Climate change . All projections are based on 1986 - 2005. So all of Climate Change is based on 30 years of data. But perhaps Forbes Magazine is more convincing https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/07/19/nasas-inconvenient-ruse-the-goddard-institute-for-space-studies/#b03521969632 In a Jan. 29, 2006, New York Times interview Hansen charged that NASA public relations people had pressured him to allow them to review future public lectures, papers and postings on the GISS website. Yet in January 15, 2009 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works-Minority Committee, his former boss John S. Theon, retired chief of NASA's Climate Processes Research Program, took issue with the interference charge, stating: "Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen has embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claim of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress." Hey Troy do you think this guy may know what he is talking about. Dr. Theon also testified that: "My own belief concerning anthropogenic [man-made] climate change is that models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit". He observed: "Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modeled in the observations, nor explain how they did it…this is contrary to the way science should be done." He then went on to say "Thus, there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy".