«
»

Reiterating an important law of most academic studies

From an extensive statistical study published by Earth System Dynamics:

our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not statistically significant at conventional levels

If an academic study offends common sense, in all likelihood it is wrong. HT’s: WUWT, PL

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 5th, 2013 at 1:08 pm and is filed under business, Democrats, General, Left of Left, Republicans, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “Reiterating an important law of most academic studies”

  1. gs Says:
    January 6th, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    From a referee:

    In summary, this paper reports some important evidence regarding the AGW controversy. The results show that simply examining the historical record cannot throw any light on AGW, one way or the other. This is not the same as showing evidence against AGW, but it does debunk effectively, using an impeccable statistical methodology, the naïve argument from upward drift. This paper is an important contribution to the literature on AGW although it does require some revision, as detailed in the comments, before being suitable for publication.

    Boldface mine.

    My (lack of an) opinion doesn’t change: just because there might be nothing to worry about, I’m not willing to bet the biosphere; just because there might be a problem, I’m not willing to stifle the world economy and condemn billions of people to poverty.

    I support continuing research, not just on the underlying facts but also on potential mitigation technologies.

  2. gs Says:
    January 6th, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    Oops, somehow the blockquote feature bolded the whole passage quoted in my previous post. I meant to bold only “This is not the same as showing evidence against AGW”. Since a preview feature is not available at Dinocrat, I tested my comment in Blogger; it worked fine there.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site