"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:57:13 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:

Basically this stuff is "Roulette for Dummies" page 1.



michael adams

...

.

As I said further back in this thread, I don't pretend to understand
the statistics, but if Keenan's analysis is so basically flawed, I'm
surprised the statisticians at the Met Office didn't point it out, as
they don't seem to have done.

I'm not competent to judge on the specifics either. Only that Keenan
doesn't seem to have much grasp of basic probability.

Otherwise there's the general point which may or may not be relevant here,
which I made earlier. That the popular literature on pseudo science, everything
from Ben Goldacre to Michael Shermer is replete with examples of how cranks
and conspiracy theorists use a refusal by those in authority to answer
their detailed "questions" as a tacit admission on their part, of a
conspiracy and a cover up.

The problem is that answering questions posed by potential cranks and
conspiracy theorists only tends to lend them credibility; more especially
when most impartial observers are unable to distinguish genuine matters of
dispute from deliberate attemps at obfuscation by cranks.


michael adams

....












--

Chris