# William M. Briggs, Blogger

William M. Briggs, Statistician, is one of the outstanding technical blogs on the internet today. As indicated by the sub-title, â€œAll manner of statistical analyses cheerfully undertakenâ€, it occupies a similar niche to Niche Modeling, recognizing and filling a felt need for basic statistical analysis of everyday events. The posts are often illustrated by programming in R code, providing a wonderful introduction to programming in R for statistics. The subjects range from global warming to clinical trials. As writing, the posts are literary, fluid and print-ready. In particular, W.M. Briggs is master of the arresting opening sentence, essential in a surfing medium. Here are some notable examples.

Says Paul Krugman, a writer for a local New York paper, “The only way weâ€™re going to get action, Iâ€™d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral.” He means â€œactionâ€ on man-made global warming. From Wrong -> Immoral -> Illegal?

The other day, as a favor, I posted a scientific article from a friend of mine, Dr H. Harrister, PhD, who conclusively showed that fitter people have larger carbon footprints than do fatter people. From Stop making babies to reduce global warming

Hereâ€™s the problem. You are a scientist, working on measuring the levels of aragonite in ocean water. Itâ€™s not very sexy and nobody beyond a small cadre seems to care. But itâ€™s grant time and you and your team are â€œfiguring out how to make the issue more potentâ€ so that you can bring in the bucks. From At least theyâ€™re admitting it.

It is an understatement to say that there has been a lot of attention to the relationship of temperature and CO2. Two broad hypotheses are advanced: (Hypothesis 1) As more CO2 is added to the air, through radiative effects, the temperature later rises; and (Hypothesis 2) As temperature increases, through ocean-chemical and biological effects, CO2 is later added to the atmosphere. From CO2 and Temperature: which predicts which?

Much is made of the fact that these various GCMs show rough agreement with each other. People have the sense that, since so many â€œdifferentâ€ GCMs agree, we should have more confidence that what they say is true. Today I will discuss why this view is false. From Why multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting.

My friends, I need your help. From Quantifying uncertainty in AGW.

I often sayâ€”it is even the main theme of this blogâ€”that people are too certain. You cannot measure a mean.

I am one of the scientists that attended the recent Heartland Climate Conference in Manhattan, where I live. It is my belief that the strident and frequent claims of catastrophes caused by man-made global warming are stated with a degree of confidence not warranted by the data. From Heartland Climate Conference Summary.

## 0 thoughts on “William M. Briggs, Blogger”

1. GUEST says:

The original climate model didn’t account for manmade pollutants and was falsified when it stopped tracking the data. Climatologists then began using models that accounted for CO2 emissions and CFC emissions. Unless you can provide an alternate model that tracks the data without including these manmade pollutants you’re opinion is just hot air Dr. Briggs and you know it. Put up or shut up as the saying goes. Come up with a peer-reviewed natural warming trend model or admit that the only working model we have indicates were affecting the climate. I wouldn’t give a wooden nickel for an unsupported opinion like yours.

Krugman is right. People who do pseudoscience by using their degress to advance personal opinions as scientifically valid opinions are immoral.

2. Pingback: polecam

3. Pingback: fashion with a purpose

4. Pingback: oferta

5. Pingback: kliknij

6. Pingback: polecam

7. Pingback: witryna www

8. Pingback: opieka informatyczna katowice

9. Pingback: zobacz tutaj