Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:08:15 +0200 From: "Richard" <rootnospamlhost> Subject: Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth?
"Gary Fritz" <fritzxxxnospamrii.com> schreef in bericht news:Xns991C54B461F0Dfritzfriicomnospam168.3.50... > Fred W <malt_houndnospamo.com> wrote: >> Ah yes. The unbiased ones would be the ones that agree with your >> predisposed position? > > Look at the ones I posted. They are postings of hard observational data. > I consider data to be inherently unbiased. When you start drawing > conclusions and deriving theories from the data, then the bias starts to > creep in. But the data itself is just data. > > (Yes, it is absolutely true that you can construct an experiment to skew > the data toward your desired outcome. That would then be biased data. > But > I find it difficult to imagine how you could do that with sea levels, > numbers of tropical storms, or Antarctic ice cores.) O... that would be an easy one: Just change the way you count. You dont have to "construct" anything, it does not have to be a rational decision. For me, a tropical storm might be something different from your tropical storm. Antarctic ice cores: who says the CO2 stays in the ice and never goes anywhere? We simply dont know that, not for SURE at least. How and where do you measure your rising sea levels? At high tide? At low tide? Spring tide? At high winds? No wind? No wind for how long? Sea levels are not nearly as constant annd predictable as you would assume, a little wind for a few days make the water rise or fall by half a meter regularly here. I live in the Netherlands, I like to do some sailing every now and then. Plenty of water, and plenty of sea levels. DIFFERENT sea levels. From one day to the next. Even "counting" and "measuring" is much more subjective than we like it to be. But I do agree that raw data is best to make up your own mind, but only IF it comes with how and where and when the data was obtained. Richard.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
