the whole 940-60 thing is just a thing that got out of hand.
I don't even know the whole argument, and I do think you do get a lot of unneeded crap for it, but you did bring it up this time and I think people are sick of hearing it.
The point is that for months many people thought I was wrong when I said that "940 heads and 60 tails is statistically different from that of a fair coin at the 95% confidence level", which anyone who understands basic statistics would immediately realize is a true statement.
I clearly argued why it was true, but facts don't matter to a lot of people on this forum.
This problem can't be ignored, because a lot of time was spent arguing it. If people were still claiming I was wrong here, they're obviously going to claim I'm wrong everywhere.
okay, with a 95% CI, yeah, that's true. But that's a lot to get upset over when someone doesn't understand that.
As I said, many people were calling me JFraud, and claiming I was wrong, even though I had proven that I was right. I back up what I say more than most people on here, but this forum doesn't give a sh**t about the facts. I had proven that my statement was true but people said that J.J. (who argued that it was false) knew more about statistics. That speaks volumes about this forum.
You just said it was statistically significant, not that it was significant when compared to a fair coin. The first is an empty and meaningless statement, the second is obviously true. And neither have anything to do with determining if there is a statistically significant relationship between temperatures and CO2 levels, the discussion that started the whole thing over a year ago now.
Hate to keep it going, just want to make sure the whole story is out there.
Poll
