Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
Journal Bans Wee P-values—And Confidence Intervals! Break Out The Champagne!

W.M. Briggs is ecstatic

Many, many, and even many times you don’t need statistical procedures. You just look at your data. How many in this group vs. that group. Just count! Why does the difference exist? Who knows? Not statistics, that’s for sure. Believing wee p-values proved causation was the biggest fallacy running. We don’t need statistical models to tell us what happened. The data can do that alone.

Re: Journal Bans Wee P-values—And Confidence Intervals! Break Out The Champagne!

All hail simplicity. Always look at the raw data..

The trick though is finding the raw data. What is the raw data for satellite temperatures? Is it a voltage?

What is the raw data for surface temperatures? A monthly average of High Temps? Or is it the individual log entries for each reading? A picture of the logged records?

Where are the **** Wet Bulb Temps stored?

Why are airports interested in Wet Bulb Temps?

Wait, I am wandering down the street again, aimlessy trying to point to the #$)*(_@#$_ N (those are random letters symbolizing words that cannot be said because we are civilized folk here) white elephant in the room.


I am not pointing at Heisenberg. I am pointing at Popper. I may be pointing at Heisenberg a little. You can't completely ignore him if only because we aren't looking at the temperature gauges constantly. Looking at the gauges constantly would have the doors open constantly! Maybe we put a camera inside and use that so we don't open the doors, but better we can just use a thermister to register the temperature. But now we are back at the raw data being voltages.

Do not attempt to explain that to Warmist. "Why the H is he referring to voltages as raw data? He is just crazy!"

I hope everyone here understand why I say voltage. I might be mistaken because it might also be resistance or even current. The trick is that they are all tied together to let us get at something else. The mass of equations that is actually pretty small is still big enough that writing them all down sends the wrong message. Not writing them down also sends the wrong message.

Rational thoughts expands linearly or sub linearly.

Irrational thought expands exponentially.

Sometimes I wonder if my attempts to remain rational are actually signs of being irrational. The people who stop for 3 or 4 pints before they get home makes a lot more sense.