Is Tamino dishonest?

Agree to Disagree

Debate in a non-hostile environment

 

 


Is Tamino dishonest?


.

Tamino recently published an article on his website, called “Multiple Testing”.

It was yet another attempt to convince people that there was no recent slowdown.

Tamino has put an awful lot of effort into trying to convince people that the recent slowdown doesn’t exist. The fact that he has to keep doing it, again and again, indicates that he is not doing a very good job of it.

I decided that I would like to contribute to the discussion on Tamino’s website. Most people know that I am interested in the recent slowdown, and that I have put a considerable amount of effort into studying it.

I thought that Tamino would be reasonable, and allow people to see my comment. I was wrong. My comment never made it onto the thread.

Tamino may think that he can keep me quiet, by refusing to publish my comment. But when somebody treats me like that, it motivates me to spread my message, even stronger than before.

If I can post a message on Tamino’s website, then I have to be fairly polite. But when I have to post it on my own website, I can be as disrespectful as I like. Thanks for giving me permission, Tamino.

The thing that annoys me the most about this situation, is that Tamino is censoring what his followers get to see. Tamino must think that his followers are gullible, or have weak minds, that would be damaged by seeing my comment. Nobody can be certain that they have made the correct decision, if they don’t have all of the available information. Tamino is deliberately withholding information from his followers.

If I was a Tamino follower (God forbid), I would be extemely pissed off to find out that I wasn’t being shown all of the available information. I have seen comments from Tamino’s followers, referring to me. They think that I have “disappeared”, but they don’t realise that it is because Tamino won’t publish any of my comments.

Below, is the comment that I tried to post on Tamino’s website. It is an exact copy, so that you can see that my comment wasn’t “unacceptable” in any way. The only reason for refusing to publish it, is because Tamino doesn’t like me, or my views.

~ ~ ~ start of comment ~ ~ ~

If you are serious about testing for a “pause/hiatus/slowdown”, then you need to consider the following points. I would like to see your opinion of these points.

1) Temperature data is noisy. It is difficult to find a 10 year period, with a statistically significant warming trend. Does that mean that it is not warming?

Looking for a slowdown or pause, in “noisy” temperature data, is like looking for a black cow on a moonless night. They are both hard to see. But that does not mean that they aren’t there.

2) Many Alarmists insist that a slowdown or pause must be statistically significant, before they will accept that it exists.

But Slowdowns and pauses are both “negative” results. They exist when there is NO statistically significant result.

By saying that you will not accept that a slowdown or pause exists, unless it is statistically significant, you are effectively saying that you will NEVER accept that a slowdown or pause exists, even if it lasts for 10,000 years.

Compare the Alarmist belief about slowdowns and pauses, with this statement. “I will never accept that the apple barrel is empty, unless there are a statistically significant number of apples in it”.

Slowdowns and pauses should be specified as the null hypothesis. In my experience, Alarmists often don’t specify a null hypothesis, because they don’t want to allow for the possibility of a slowdown or pause.

3) Let me illustrate statistical significance, with a funny story.

A Skeptic is walking through a paddock (on a farm), on a moonless night. He bumps into something. He thinks, “this could be a cow”. He walks around where he thinks the possible cow is, and continues walking across the paddock.

Now, an Alarmist is walking through the same paddock (on a farm), on a moonless night.

He bumps into something. He thinks, “this could be a cow”. He tries to see the cow, but can’t make it out, because it is too dark. He thinks, “there is no statistically significant cow here”, and tries to continue walking straight ahead.

He bumps into something. He thinks, “this could be a cow”. He tries to see the cow, but can’t make it out, because it is too dark. He thinks, “there is no statistically significant cow here”, and tries to continue walking straight ahead.

He bumps into something. He thinks, “this could be a cow”. He tries to see the cow, but can’t make it out, because it is too dark. He thinks, “there is no statistically significant cow here”, and tries to continue walking straight ahead.

This is exactly how Alarmists deal with the slowdown. They think that because it is not statistically significant, that it does not exist (just like the cow).

Have you ever thought about what “statistically significant”, really means?

It really means, “statistically significantly different from zero”.

Guess what? A pause has a slope (warming rate) of zero.

Zero is NOT “statistically significantly different from zero”.

So a pause can never be statistically significant, even if it lasts for 10,000 years.

Alarmist statistics are designed to NOT find slowdowns and pauses. Even if they are real.

~ ~ ~ end of comment ~ ~ ~

You can probably see why Tamino banned my comment now.

In my opinion, most Alarmists don’t do statistical testing properly. Their method of testing is designed to find what they want to find, and to “not find” what they don’t want to find.

If they don’t find a statistically significant warming rate, then they don’t accept the null hypothesis, “that it wasn’t warming” (they often don’t even have a null hypothesis). They pretend that a result which is not statistically significant, means that “you can’t tell what the warming rate is”. Then they keep repeating the statistical testing, until they get the result that they want (usually by chance, 1:20).

Here is one of their biggest mistakes. They claim that slowdowns and pauses must be statistically significant, to exist. As I said earlier, slowdowns and pauses are “negative” results. They exist when there is NO statistically significant result.

And here is another Alarmist mistake. Just because you can’t PROVE that a slowdown or pause exists, DOESN’T PROVE THAT IT DOESN’T EXIST. Like the black cow on a moonless night. You can’t prove that it is there, but that doesn’t prove that there is no cow.

Imagine a temperature signal with no “noise”, that clearly shows a slowdown. Add a little temperature “noise”. You can still see the slowdown. Add a bit more temperature “noise”. The slowdown is getting hard to detect, but you can just make it out. Now add a lot of temperature “noise”. You can no longer detect the slowdown, because it is swamped by the temperature “noise”.

Does that mean that there is no longer a slowdown there? We know that the slowdown is there, because it was in the original signal. Alarmists will now tell you that there is no slowdown. But there IS a slowdown there, it is just hidden by the “noise”.

Hopefully the comments that I have made here, give you an idea about what the slowdown/pause debate is about. I would be interested in hearing your views. Unlike Tamino, I am always willing to listen to what other people have to say.