"Action on AGW"??

Who still falls for that load of old bollocks??

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 9:04pm:

oh dear....  wrong again Monkeyboy.

But I do know how they count Polar Bears.

Ignorance again.

Do you know what the null and alternative hypothesis are now?

I did have to educate you before:

1. Since I see evidence of global temperatures increasing all around me my alternative hyposthesis has to be

H1: temperatures are rising. Can’t be anything else.

To test this statistically we need to formulate an alternative hypothesis that we can test:

H0: Temperatures are stable.

When we look at the temperature record, no matter what valid test we apply obviously we have to reject H0. The only choice we have then is that H1 is correct.

So, no, ignoramus, the null hypothesis is not AGW.

You forgot all this so soon?

Want to discuss ChiSquare again too? 

AGW is clearly happening.

We can do something about it: renewable energy. With sound policy settings we can generate reliable clean power at lower prices than we can do with coal. Clean air, no more black lung etc. Why not do it?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 10:59pm:



Since you are so sure that AGW is now the null hypothesis a simple google search by you for "AGW the new null hypothesis" should show up. After all the alarmists would jump on that in no time.

You can't teach statistics if you can't apply them correctly.

Your alternative hypothesis should be submitted to a peer review magazine on statistics and let them decide how good it is.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 10:58am:

Funny that you accept flawed modelling and approximates and estimates on temperatures or anomalies, but NOT with Polar Bears.
Oh BTW the count went up from 20,000 to 31,000 its not a range.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2017 at 1:33pm:


The globe according to the stats is warming spasmodically. What you have failed to do is to even correlate it to CO2, let alone causation.   Don't forget the CO2 part of the story.