First Law of DWC (dealing with crackpots): "They are crackpots. Normal
discourse is not possible. You cannot have any 'normal' interaction with
them,

Second Law of DWC: There shall be no second law - by virtue of the
relentless logic of the First Law.

As in TD I suspect I have overlooked the Zeroth Law because it was just
too damned obvious )

First Law of DWC (dealing with crackpots): "They are crackpots. Normal
discourse is not possible. You cannot have any 'normal' interaction with
them,

Second Law of DWC: There shall be no second law - by virtue of the
relentless logic of the First Law.

As in TD I suspect I have overlooked the Zeroth Law because it was just
too damned obvious )

I am not surprised with this and I understand why you do not want to
continue the discussion. You have just been caught lying and pretending
to know a lot about time series analysis. This should be clear to anyone
who has the time to follow our discussion from the moment you suggested
your "best buy procedure".

I think it should work the other way - people who claim that their
models work should prove this

Von Neumann machines are deterministic, the models run just fine.

Huh? What does it have to do with

What more proof do you need? You don't seem to understand even what a
model is, and how a computer actually works.

so far I have seen model working for past data,

So far you have only demonstrated here that you have ZERO research and
development skills, don't even bother to do the most cursory searches on
the subject before you feel you have something to say about it. You are
an easily identifiable CRACKPOT.

Show me what a cracpot I am and how clever you are - give an example of a
climate model which works correctly.

On May 12, 11:18 am, zdzis1 <zdz... at (no spam) 31.pl> wrote:

I think it should work the other way - people who claim that their
models work should prove this

Von Neumann machines are deterministic, the models run just fine.

Huh? What does it have to do with

The models are composed of mathematical relationships and equations
that are reduced to discrete logical software operations, that run of
discrete digital computing machines.

They run their logical conclusion
or to a certain resolution or time limit, and you collect the output
as data, how could they possibly be 'wrong', as you say?

They're automata (in a very loose sense of the word).

What more proof do you need? You don't seem to understand even what a
model is, and how a computer actually works.

so far I have seen model working for past data,

So far you have only demonstrated here that you have ZERO research and
development skills, don't even bother to do the most cursory searches on
the subject before you feel you have something to say about it. You are
an easily identifiable CRACKPOT.

Show me what a cracpot I am and how clever you are - give an example of a
climate model which works correctly.

They all do what they were designed to do, that's how properly
designed machinery operates. In the words of Big Thought himself :

"I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've
never actually known what the question is."

Science is about the continual asking of questions. The models and the
machines just give you specific answers to specific questions that you
ask yourself. They work just fine, they could be a lot bigger and
faster and use less energy, surely, and there are numerous variations
of deterministic machinery that we are exploring to improve upon them.

On May 12, 11:18 am, zdzis1 <zdz... at (no spam) 31.pl> wrote:
I think it should work the other way - people who claim that their
models work should prove this

Von Neumann machines are deterministic, the models run just fine.

Huh? What does it have to do with

The models are composed of mathematical relationships and equations that
are reduced to discrete logical software operations, that run of
discrete digital computing machines. They run their logical conclusion
or to a certain resolution or time limit, and you collect the output as
data, how could they possibly be 'wrong', as you say?

They're automata (in a very loose sense of the word).

What more proof do you need? You don't seem to understand even what a
model is, and how a computer actually works.

so far I have seen model working for past data,

So far you have only demonstrated here that you have ZERO research
and development skills, don't even bother to do the most cursory
searches on the subject before you feel you have something to say
about it. You are an easily identifiable CRACKPOT.

Show me what a cracpot I am and how clever you are - give an example of
a climate model which works correctly.

They all do what they were designed to do, that's how properly designed
machinery operates. In the words of Big Thought himself :

"I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never
actually known what the question is."

Science is about the continual asking of questions. The models and the
machines just give you specific answers to specific questions that you
ask yourself. They work just fine, they could be a lot bigger and faster
and use less energy, surely, and there are numerous variations of
deterministic machinery that we are exploring to improve upon them.

[snip illucid crackpot nonsense]

On May 12, 8:59 pm, zdzis1 <zdz... at (no spam) 31.pl> wrote:
First Law of DWC (dealing with crackpots): "They are crackpots.
Normal discourse is not possible. You cannot have any 'normal'
interaction with them,

Second Law of DWC: There shall be no second law - by virtue of the
relentless logic of the First Law.

As in TD I suspect I have overlooked the Zeroth Law because it was
just too damned obvious )

I am not surprised with this and I understand why you do not want to
continue the discussion. You have just been caught lying and pretending
to know a lot about time series analysis. This should be clear to
anyone who has the time to follow our discussion from the moment you
suggested your "best buy procedure".

Ah... now I remember it...
Zeroth Law of DWC: Crackpots can be easily identified by their claim
that everyone else is lying.

Now, as in TD, I need a Third Law. What can you offer to jog my memory?
Just give me a mathematical description of your "best buy procedure" and

Pozdrowienia, but no serdeczne as you might say.
Dla ciebie rowniez pozdrownienia - z tym ze ode mnie SERDECZNE. Zrob

On Mon, 12 May 2008 00:05:45 -0700, John M. wrote:
On May 12, 8:33 am, zdzis1 <zdz... at (no spam) 31.pl> wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:17:32 -0700, John M. wrote:
Your reference to some non-existent analysis by me? is puzzling,
unless I can be persuaded to take the view that you actually haven't
a clue what is going on all around you.

I call him M-for-Moron, he calls himself V-for-Vendicar - you can find
his analysis above.

So I'm supposed to be psychic, as well as deductive, when I read your
posts.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/05/

selective_data_and_global_warm.php#more

I found this one, and this is why I asked you for a formal
exposition of the method. The guy who writes this blog is not a
mathematician - he is a programmer.

You obviously know more about him than he does himself. Are you his
psychiatrist by any chance?

Quote from his blogsite:

"Good Math, Bad Math is a blog which exists for two reasons:

1. For me to ramble about the beauty of mathematics, and try to
share my enthusiasm for the subject.
2. To track down the bozos who use bad math to lie, distort
reality, and in general support bad arguments; demonstrate their
errors and their dishonesty; and generally mock them."

about the author
"Mark Chu-Carroll (aka MarkCC) is a PhD Computer Scientist, who works
for Google as a Software Engineer. My professional interests center on
programming languages and tools, and how to improve the languages and
tools that are used for building complex software systems."
programmer - not mathematician

He does not know much about mathematics - for example he mistakes
randomness for chaos, which are actually two oposite notions (chaos
if fully deterministic - and please no bwahahahaing before
checking).

Quote from the blog in question, which you really should've taken
time to read. Then you could have avoided getting the following egg
on your face.

Quoting Mark Chu-Carroll in
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/05/

selective_data_and_global_warm.php#more

"Let me take a moment to explain one very important word in the
discussion above: chaotic. In mathematics, chaos has a very specific
meaning. It doesn't mean random without pattern. It means that
there's a high sensitivity to initial conditions, and a particular
kind of stochastic self-similarity. The canonical example of this is
brownian motion."

I suppose bwahahahaha... is in order at this point, you silly person
you.

This shows why you don't have a clue: BROWNIAN MOTION IS NOT CHAOTIC -
it is a random (or stochastic) process!

This shows that you cannot even understand relatively plain English.
What MarkCC says is BM for individual particles is seemingly random
until one factors in the motion of all the other particles. This is an
impossible task even for a super computer, so it is better to treat it
as random, just as one does with some so-called random numbers in
Mathematics, many of which could be deduced by a huge (but sub-
infinite) series of calculations and measurements.

Random is random, chaotic is chaotic - even wikipedia knows this - your
(and his) narration will not change mathematics. There is no way Brownian
motion could be a chaotic process - it is a complex process (now look up
complexity before answerint), but NOT chaotic.

I find your FNTD (farting-and-tap-dancing) routines wearing a bit thin.
So what is your mother tongue?

Polish

Perhaps we could switch to that language for a change.

nie ma problemu - ale z tego co widze twoja znajomosc statystyki i
matematyki jest taka sama jak znajomosc polskiego

All in all you cannot point me to a mathematical reference on your "best
buy procedure" and you cannot explain it yourself. You actually tried to
make people believe that you know something about mathematics by using a
mathematical term and hoping that no one will call your bluff. You lied
about the blogger being a mathematician, you did not recognize the fact
that he confuses chaos with randomness. You yourself have confused chaos
with complexity, which are related, but not identical notions. You
haven't answered any question.

So, what doest that make you, my dear anonymous John M?

anonymously yours
zdzis1

ps. you can still save your face by providing a mathematical account of
your "best buy procedure" - you can cite a paper or you can explain it
yourself

That's not very scientific. Wait for what I have to say. I want to be
thorough so I will not rush my analysis. You will have a chance
to address the exact points I am going to make. ++ No doubt it will be more FNTD on your part. (added by JHM)

nie ma problemu - ale z tego co widze twoja znajomosc statystyki i
matematyki jest taka sama jak znajomosc polskiego

Sprawiać przyjemność wstawiają znaki diakrytyczne. Tłumaczenie maszyny
potrzebujÄ… tych.
That's gibberish!

All in all you cannot point me to a mathematical reference on your
"best buy procedure" and you cannot explain it yourself. You actually
tried to make people believe that you know something about mathematics
by using a mathematical term and hoping that no one will call your
bluff. You lied about the blogger being a mathematician, you did not
recognize the fact that he confuses chaos with randomness. You yourself
have confused chaos with complexity, which are related, but not
identical notions. You haven't answered any question.

So, what doest that make you, my dear anonymous John M?

It makes YOU so incompetent that you can't even see my full name in the
addy that accompanies all my posts..
so, what is your full name? who are you?

anonymously yours
zdzis1

ps. you can still save your face by providing a mathematical account of
your "best buy procedure" - you can cite a paper or you can explain it
yourself

To which you will, no doubt, continue your FNTD as you did on April 28
in this final goodbye to a thread involving you and Roger Coppock.
I am still waiting - just say you have no idea, or provide the details.

Quote: Zdzisław Crąkpót - "OK then, I will write another analysis - this
time I will disect your misconseptions about the Shapiro-Wilk test. I
will post it to the group as a pdf file very soon."

And then.....nothing.
I answered to his misguided interpretation of the Shapiro - Wilk test. I

Oh, well, yes... there was "My work here is done
and I'm out of here." on the 1st May. At which point a naughty forger
stole Zdshem's sig and continued to troll the group almost daily with
claims of superior mathematical and statistical abilities.
Oh, I just couldn't stay away. I am evil by nature and I take pleasure in

Perhaps it's
Alfred Tarski or Stanisław Ulam back from the dead
Actually I am Mikołaj Kopernik back from the dead

I'll end with another quote (Apr 20) which I will paraphrase for myself.
That's not very scientific. Wait for what I have to say. I want to be
thorough so I will not rush my analysis. You will have a chance to
address the exact points I am going to make. ++ No doubt it will be
more FNTD on your part. (added by JHM)
See, you read, re-read, copy and paste my older posts - wouldn't it be

On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:32:01 -0700, kT wrote:
On May 12, 11:18 am, zdzis1 <zdz... at (no spam) 31.pl> wrote:
I think it should work the other way - people who claim that their
models work should prove this

Von Neumann machines are deterministic, the models run just fine.

Huh? What does it have to do with

The models are composed of mathematical relationships and equations that
are reduced to discrete logical software operations, that run of
discrete digital computing machines. They run their logical conclusion
or to a certain resolution or time limit, and you collect the output as
data, how could they possibly be 'wrong', as you say?

They're automata (in a very loose sense of the word).

What more proof do you need? You don't seem to understand even what a
model is, and how a computer actually works.

so far I have seen model working for past data,

So far you have only demonstrated here that you have ZERO research
and development skills, don't even bother to do the most cursory
searches on the subject before you feel you have something to say
about it. You are an easily identifiable CRACKPOT.

Show me what a cracpot I am and how clever you are - give an example of
a climate model which works correctly.

They all do what they were designed to do, that's how properly designed
machinery operates. In the words of Big Thought himself :

"I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never
actually known what the question is."

Science is about the continual asking of questions. The models and the
machines just give you specific answers to specific questions that you
ask yourself. They work just fine, they could be a lot bigger and faster
and use less energy, surely, and there are numerous variations of
deterministic machinery that we are exploring to improve upon them.

[snip illucid crackpot nonsense]

You say that I AM A CRACKPOT??? Have you read what you have just
written???

zdzis1 wrote:

[snip]

Oh man! That's so funny I'm top-posting it!

As soon as you have something useful to contribute to the discussion of
science and mathematics, you get right back to us, ok? We can hook you
up with possible publishers right away!

nie ma problemu - ale z tego co widze twoja znajomosc statystyki i
matematyki jest taka sama jak znajomosc polskiego

Sprawiaæ przyjemno¶æ wstawiaj± znaki diakrytyczne. T³umaczenie maszyny
potrzebuj± tych.

That's gibberish!

All in all you cannot point me to a mathematical reference on your
"best buy procedure" and you cannot explain it yourself. You actually
tried to make people believe that you know something about mathematics
by using a mathematical term and hoping that no one will call your
bluff. You lied about the blogger being a mathematician, you did not
recognize the fact that he confuses chaos with randomness. You yourself
have confused chaos with complexity, which are related, but not
identical notions. You haven't answered any question.

So, what doest that make you, my dear anonymous John M?

It makes YOU so incompetent that you can't even see my full name in the
addy that accompanies all my posts..

so, what is your full name? who are you?

by the way, it is not so difficult to find out who I am and where I live
and work

ps. you can still save your face by providing a mathematical account of
your "best buy procedure" - you can cite a paper or you can explain it
yourself

To which you will, no doubt, continue your FNTD as you did on April 28
in this final goodbye to a thread involving you and Roger Coppock.

I am still waiting - just say you have no idea, or provide the details.

Quote: Zdzis³aw Cr±kpót - "OK then, I will write another analysis - this
time I will disect your misconseptions about the Shapiro-Wilk test. I
will post it to the group as a pdf file very soon."

And then.....nothing.

I answered to his misguided interpretation of the Shapiro - Wilk test. I
wanted to develop the answer into a small article, but then I thought
that its not worth it - hardly anyone would understand it. So, if you
want to know what I wanted to say just read my answer to RC's claim that
rounding errors are responsible for the failure of his model. I may still
write the pdf document if people are interested in more detail about the
influence of rouning data on the Shapiro-Wilk test of the residuals. If
there are 5 different people who want to read it I will.

Oh, well, yes... there was "My work here is done
and I'm out of here." on the 1st May. At which point a naughty forger
stole Zdshem's sig and continued to troll the group almost daily with
claims of superior mathematical and statistical abilities.

Oh, I just couldn't stay away. I am evil by nature and I take pleasure in
tormenting you guys. You have no clue what you are talking about, yet you
claim that you do. It's so funny to see you guys trying to save face!
Take yourself for example. All it would take is just pointing me to a
paper on your "best buy method" or explaining it yourself - I would just
say "OK - it is not a bogus method, it really exists and it is the best
buy" and I would leave you alone. But nooooooo ... you prefer to jump
through the hoops, call me troll, liar, crackpot, finding excuses why you
won't give me the theory, finding my older posts, reading them, re-
reading them, copying them, pasting them, finding a program for
translating from Polish and to Polish. It's really funny! You say I am a
crackpot and you do not want to give me the answer becouse you don't want
to talk to me, and yet you go to all this trouble. And do you seriously
believe that anyone reading this "discussion" still believes you know
anything? If you did you would just give the me the answer and stopped
talking to me!

I'm not claiming "superior mathematical and statistical abilities" - just
average competence. You have nothing for me.

Perhaps it's
Alfred Tarski or Stanis³aw Ulam back from the dead :-)

Actually I am Miko³aj Kopernik back from the dead
See, you can't help it! You even googled the most famous Polish
mathematicians

- don't you have anything more productive to do than
taking interest in some crackpot's national heroes?

I'll end with another quote (Apr 20) which I will paraphrase for myself.
That's not very scientific. Wait for what I have to say. I want to be
thorough so I will not rush my analysis. You will have a chance to
address the exact points I am going to make. ++ No doubt it will be
more FNTD on your part. (added by JHM)

See, you read, re-read, copy and paste my older posts - wouldn't it be
more efficient to just answer my question? And if I am a crackpot and you
have your two laws why do you go to all this trouble? Why do you search
the group for my posts?

I'm still wating for your explanation of the method.

I don't have the strength or time to answer all your bull. Just give me
the theory behind your "best buy" - the rest is unimportant.

Guess you missed it amongst all the other detritus you scattered around
trying to persuade us you alone understand how statistical analysis
should be performed.
No, you never gave any mathematics behind your best buy.

So I'll tell the world just once more. IMO the methodology needed for a
time series containing large amounts of "noise" is to examine trends for
ALL periods of ALL intervals > 2 units. In this way one will see the
overlapping trends for a period beginning to line up with the regression
for the whole series as the interval increases.

This is the method outlined by mathematician Dr. Chu-Carroll
by programmer Dr. Chu-Carrol
in his
mathematically orientated blog
in his blog presenting his personal opinions on a variety of topics

, to which I drew attention some days ago.
He probably coined the phrase "periodic trending" for it,
So this method actually does not exist - it's just differentiation plus

but all
neologism starts somewhere.
most of them never make it

I considered it the "best buy" because it does not rely on parametric
methods.
Because it's just plotting - you never get as far as parameter estimation

Indeed, a standard non-parametric procedure can handily be used
on a related collection of trends, to obtain an overall regression line
for the series. Significance of the slope can also be found. (Kendall,
M.G. and Gibbons, J.D. 1990 "Rank Correlation Methods" Arnold, London.)
So do you want to find the regression LINE or not? And what do you want

The best bit - no Q-Q plots, Shapiro-Wilk or Lilliefors tests, no Box-
Cox or ACE transforming when those tests spit out the bad news, etc.,
etc. Forget R. Just good old Russian-astronaut-style pencil and paper
needed.
Fine! Let's do this! Let's discuss some mathematics pencil-and-paper

rather than writing countless pages about why you will not do it, and
more recently, about myself (thank you for this). In fact I could be
liar, rapist and war criminal, but it STILL would not change the fact
that you know squat.

You forgot paedophile and terrorist - do you have something against
them?
no, nothing - just forgot

John, as I said, by now everybody is aware that you have no statistical
knowledge - if you did, you would have made use of it.

Use it on Usenet. Do me a favour. I save it for more serious things. You
didn't mention whether you had decided who I am yet, so I guess you
didn't see any papers of mine that made it online.
I can see your signature, but I don't know who you are, I don't know what

Your attempts to
save face have failed, because at the end of the day you have to make
good on you words and actually provide the mathematical details, which
you haven't done.

Still waiting for it, though

So now you have it.
No, still waiting ...

Except, of course, as the ever blinkered denialist,
you won't accept it, will you?
That's a very convenient way of getting out of trouble. BUT - no

You'll continue to use duff statistics to "prove" the planet is cooling
down
Never said this - you should know, as you have read all my messages at

that the Montreal
protocol failed to close the ozone hole,
never said this
that acid rain never happened
so power station SO2 scrubbers were a waste of space...
never said this
the list is
endless.
Yes, the list of the things I never said is indeed endless ...

Thankfully your head-banger's brigade is too small to make much
impact on the way the world now sees potential climate problems down the
road.
Still waiting for the mathematical description of your method. Note that

You are demonstrating the whacko mindset.  Arrhenius did nothing more
than make back-of-the-envelope speculations about CO2 and atmospheric
temperatures.