CDZ "Climate Science" is no longer any such thing.

[mamooth]

I hope all your logically valid Argument 1 examples are coming along nicely! I'm very eager to see them and grateful for the learning experience.

I see a whole lot of words used to evade.

So, what data could falsify denialism?

None of the deniers will tell us. Meaning, by your standards, that denialism is a religious belief, hence there's no point wasting time on its acolytes.

Oh, Watts faked all his stuff. His writers do that. All the time. They don't get published there if they don't fake, fudge, torture and twist everything in the proper denier-PC manner. That would be the refutation of your nonsense link, that conspiracy blogs don't count as sources.

 

[Kosh]

As you can see the AGW cult is more of a religion than any type of science..

Here is what they base their entire religion on:

 

[RedTeamTex]

I see a whole lot of words used to evade.

So, what data could falsify denialism?

None of the deniers will tell us. Meaning, by your standards, that denialism is a religious belief, hence there's no point wasting time on its acolytes.

Oh, Watts faked all his stuff. His writers do that. All the time. They don't get published there if they don't fake, fudge, torture and twist everything in the proper denier-PC manner. That would be the refutation of your nonsense link, that conspiracy blogs don't count as sources.

Well now, Mamooth...that's a pretty strong claim: falsifying data. I'll even give you points if you demonstrate the articles' data sources are less reputable than published research. Should be a pretty simple citation to make on your part that the recorded temperature numbers that fall below the ICPP range of projections are verifiably bogus. Would you indulge us?

To reply to your question, I don't think I can speak for "denialism." Since I don't deny the possibility of AGW, I don't consider myself a denialist. Proving a negative is no small feat, and I don't think science currently has the footing to support that strong a claim any more than it can prove its opposite.

Now earlier we saw a post mentioning one of those hip 90s buzzwords "Agnostology"...

Having commuted by bicycle now for over 27 years I don't need any proof weather is changing - I feel it. As for deniers, everything that challenges the status quo is denied. Smoking etc etc etc. The frame for the denier is a simple one of belief rather than consideration. Belief is not reality but does it matter in so many areas?

Global Warming Made simple: <strong>Final thoughts on global warming</strong> - News - The Sudbury Town Crier - Sudbury, MA

Agnotology is an interesting field of study. 'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway

Also see here and see how public opinion is created. Unfortunately it is behind a paywall but Robert Paul Wolff sums it up. The Philosopher's Stone: A STROLL DOWN MEMORY LANE

...drawing a parallel to Big Tobacco's funding scientists to sign off on slanted propaganda in the decades between knowing with statistical certainty smoking was a dramatic causal risk factor in all sorts of diseases and verifying exactly what that causal mechanism was. While it's certainly imaginable corporate interests might see themselves motivated to do the same thing with regard to claims of Catastrophic AGW, they're actually kinda irrelevant to this thread. If we all restrict ourselves to formal logic for such an investigation, then motives for anyone arguing any side become irrelevant anyway. If skepticism towards the dire claims of agw proponants is a similar "ruse" of agnosticism in the face of something as clear-cut as "smoking is really bad for you," then we're currently in a state where science can at least make an equally compelling statistical argument of the causalities of global warming. Fire away any time. (When it comes to such statistical arguments, a chart with a column of "level of confidence" somehow comes across a little less so. That'll need a little beefing up.)

So I've rhetorically conceded the fact I may be duped by a political propaganda campaign. I've given the left an opportunity to set me straight---with explicitly valid logic and facts. So far the reply has been short of that. While the invitation is still open and hope springs eternal, I will start moving along to my own burden of proof: Have those professionally representing "climate science" to the world been guilty of "junk science."

So speaking of falsifiability, here's an old NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/world/europe/18iht-climate.2.8378031.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Which includes the rather specific claim:
The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late," Pachauri said. "What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

Near as I'm aware, the magnitude of action demanded by these folks in 2007 didn't happen by 2012, and therefore if this was responsible scientific conduct---it's too late for anything to matter anyway.

Looking into that last sentence a little further, here's what I could find on legislation proposals around 2007 and soon following: http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/factsheets/leg_07032601a.pdf

Calling your attention to the chart at the end:

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007 (Feel the Bern!): Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (2007 - S. 309)
Never made it to a roll call vote.

Safe Climate Act of 2007: Safe Climate Act of 2007 (2007 - H.R. 1590)
Apparently never made it to the floor.

Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act: Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (2008 - S. 3036)
Died in committee.

Climate Stewardship Act (for whatever reason they gave this a column prior to the latest incarnation in the following column. Joe & John, Oscar & Felix...) Climate Stewardship Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 (Joe was busy!) Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 (2007 - S. 280)
Never made it to vote.

Low Carbon Economy Act: Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 (2007 - S. 1766)
You get the idea....

The US Congress was rather unalarmed back in 2007. I don't get the impression there were any major breakthroughs for the remainder of Bush 43's term. NRDC: The Bush Record The Obama Presidency has been far less reliant on legislative agendas than doing his best to massage regulatory powers, with checkered results in judicial review.

The point being, neither we nor the world responded with the urgency UN scientists demanded. The window was narrow and has long elapsed. What is science's verdict on this now historic lack of timely alarm?

Here we have an interesting dilemma for the Liberal: if there's still a possibility of saving ourselves from catastrophe and billions of dollars in environmental expenditures can still do the trick, then it's necessary for Liberals to conclude Dr. Pauchari was wrong.

What did he get wrong? How did he arrive at an inaccurate time frame? How are more currently advertised ones better?

We've got a lot more examples of specific time frames spoken with fervent certainty by the scientifically credentialed, folks. I can fill up the gaps of time in between Liberal interest in explaining the settled-ness of climate science for a good long while....

 

[mamooth]

Near as I'm aware, the magnitude of action demanded by these folks in 2007 didn't happen by 2012, and therefore if this was responsible scientific conduct---it's too late for anything to matter anyway.

What happened or didn't happen in 2007 absolutely affected the future, but obviously did not fix the future entirely

The point being, neither we nor the world responded with the urgency UN scientists demanded. The window was narrow and has long elapsed. What is science's verdict on this now historic lack of timely alarm?

That it will make the warming worse, obviously. And just as obviously, it does not mean we should all throw up our hands and declare it's impossible to do anything.

Here we have an interesting dilemma for the Liberal: if there's still a possibility of saving ourselves from catastrophe and billions of dollars in environmental expenditures can still do the trick, then it's necessary for Liberals to conclude Dr. Pauchari was wrong.

Why would you think that's a dilemma? He was wrong. Remember, one of the good things about being a liberal is that you're always free to point out errors, unlike conservatives, who are commanded to forever fanatically defend any statement any conservative ever made, no matter how wrong it is.

What did he get wrong? How did he arrive at an inaccurate time frame? How are more currently advertised ones better?

He was a politician using a bit of hyperbole, and used some absolutes when they weren't called for.

We've got a lot more examples of specific time frames spoken with fervent certainty by the scientifically credentialed, folks. I can fill up the gaps of time in between Liberal interest in explaining the settled-ness of climate science for a good long while....

Since you're now making the same error as Dr. Pauchari, with your insistence that a single absolute deadline must exist, I need only point out that your position is fallacious.

You don't seem to get the difference between the science and the politics. The science is sort of a continuum, but the politics can only play out once every 5 years or so. If the politics fails, nothing can be done until the next chance, so that makes for a big hit of warming.

You're also using logic poorly with the "settled science" issue. Science doesn't need to be absolutely settled, just settled enough. The science of gravity is still not settled completely, but it's settled enough that we can launch rockets. Similarly, climate science is settled enough that we know what action to take.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Near as I'm aware, the magnitude of action demanded by these folks in 2007 didn't happen by 2012, and therefore if this was responsible scientific conduct---it's too late for anything to matter anyway.

What happened or didn't happen in 2007 absolutely affected the future, but obviously did not fix the future entirely

The point being, neither we nor the world responded with the urgency UN scientists demanded. The window was narrow and has long elapsed. What is science's verdict on this now historic lack of timely alarm?

That it will make the warming worse, obviously. And just as obviously, it does not mean we should all throw up our hands and declare it's impossible to do anything.

Clearly his intent was to present a time-sensitive binary choice for world policy makers--tolerability on one end and Catastrophe on the other. Your comments here seem to be trying to semantically drift his meaning into some sort of relative scale. But since below you admit his claim was erroneous, let's move on.

Here we have an interesting dilemma for the Liberal: if there's still a possibility of saving ourselves from catastrophe and billions of dollars in environmental expenditures can still do the trick, then it's necessary for Liberals to conclude Dr. Pauchari was wrong.

Why would you think that's a dilemma? He was wrong. Remember, one of the good things about being a liberal is that you're always free to point out errors, unlike conservatives, who are commanded to forever fanatically defend any statement any conservative ever made, no matter how wrong it is.

Ummm...I would have to call your latter characterizations hyperbole. I'd agree that people of any political persuasion aren't necessarily inclined to admit their own errors gracefully. We could descend into a debate about which political persuasion has this vice in greater measure, but then I'd be guilty of getting distracted. I'll just point your comment is pretty weak 'clean debate.'

What did he get wrong? How did he arrive at an inaccurate time frame? How are more currently advertised ones better?

He was a politician using a bit of hyperbole, and used some absolutes when they weren't called for.

Thank you. I agree.

But let's be more forgiving and assume his motives weren't so manipulative, I'd still question the professionalism of this behavior. I won't dispute he was a politician, but he was also a scientist representing scientific matters and had a responsibility to his scientific credentials.

I'll be pointing more examples of this sort of thing sufficient to show it's a widespread behavior among a certain field of scientist these days, and then argue that it ought not to be.

We've got a lot more examples of specific time frames spoken with fervent certainty by the scientifically credentialed, folks. I can fill up the gaps of time in between Liberal interest in explaining the settled-ness of climate science for a good long while....

Since you're now making the same error as Dr. Pauchari, with your insistence that a single absolute deadline must exist, I need only point out that your position is fallacious.

I made no such claim. Nowhere did I insist a single absolute deadline must exist. I did state a very persuasive amount of math better be behind any claim that such a deadline exists regardless of the degree of specificity of deadline---for the sake of good policy decisions and more importantly for the sake of professional science's credibility.

You don't seem to get the difference between the science and the politics. The science is sort of a continuum, but the politics can only play out once every 5 years or so. If the politics fails, nothing can be done until the next chance, so that makes for a big hit of warming.

I understand quite well the difference between science and politics. The 'continuum' of understanding that is science should be represented as being in pencil if it's still in pencil--not misadvertized as being more certain than it really is. I don't expect better of average liberals or liberal politicians. I do expect better out of professional scientists...who Should give a WIDE berth to politics.

You're also using logic poorly with the "settled science" issue. Science doesn't need to be absolutely settled, just settled enough. The science of gravity is still not settled completely, but it's settled enough that we can launch rockets. Similarly, climate science is settled enough that we know what action to take.

You're welcome to try and critique my logic, if you think you can do so without misrepresenting it. It might be advisable to refresh on the mechanics and terminology of formal logic before trying to support the claim I'm using logic poorly--if only to spare yourself and our poor readers the pages of tutorials I'd explicitly lecture about in the course of my rebuttal. But if I have actually committed a logical error, I'd be eager to take a look.

I stipulated pretty early on that there's plenty of scientific theories I can make the leap and call [settled] "truth" for purposes of epistemological assignment in game theory. I'm even still persuadable that AGW may get there some day. While I'm not quite as convinced as this guy yet, it's imaginable that he could persuade me if he pitched his case:

What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?

But I do know the difference between science and politics well enough to eventually discern when liberals are trying to snow me--that's reason enough to dig in my heels on their policy prescriptions and refuse to budge until I see some darn good math and clean science.

The alternative is to trust every "Dr. Pauchari" who comes along and assume he must be trustworthy because he's a scientist and I'm not*. Or the ICPP or NOAA because they publish a graph. If you're giving the people in these institutions a pass to misrepresent science because they're politicians, then you have to admit we'd be prudent in looking for a more balanced assessment of the science from some other sources.

Do I take "Watt" with a grain of salt? You bet. (Heck, anybody who doesn't take Drudge with a grain of salt is a fool--and I bet Matt would be quick to agree.) But so far you haven't take me up on the suggestion to demonstrate that the article's author fabricated his data in that article (and cited it as coming from a UAH professor who worked for the ICPP! The cad!)

If you think AGW is "settled enough" to make sound policy prescriptions, your case isn't made yet.


*I have teenage girls, so we sure won't be doing that.

 

[mamooth]

I do expect better out of professional scientists...who Should give a WIDE berth to politics.

And 99% of them do. And a few don't. And that's fine, because a few politicians are needed. And that doesn't affect the science.

But I do know the difference between science and politics well enough to eventually discern when liberals are trying to snow me --

That's a political conspiracy theory, that there's some kind of liberal plot going on. Given nobody in the science has ever met the supposed ringleaders, it's fascinating how they're still somehow being controlled. And it's fascinating how the non-liberals across the world are also apparently in on the plot. It's only in the USA that conservatives (and almost no one else) have turned climate science into pure political ideology.

Can you explain who is issuing the orders to the scientists, and what the scientists have to gain by following those orders? It's obviously not money, since most scientists could get wealthier by switching sides and faking data for the global warming deniers. Instead, the scientists take a pay cut for the sake of telling the truth, which gives them added credibility. Almost all the financial incentive to lie is on the side opposite the scientists.

that's reason enough to dig in my heels on their policy prescriptions and refuse to budge until I see some darn good math and clean science.

Demanding a mysterious standard of "clean" is incorrect for several reasons.

1. It's not consistent. What do you define as "clean"? Economics, as one example, is a muddled mess. It's definitely not clean. Do you oppose any implementation of any economic policy of any sort? Why the singling out of one issue for demands of "clean"?

2. It's a justification for deliberate inaction, which may be harmful. Ozone science was not "clean" at the time, and we had the same kinds of declarations it was all a liberal conspiracy, but the Montreal Protocol was still implemented. If the world had waited for the 100% "clean" science to act, the world would be facing a much bigger problem now.

3. It's a way to feign rationality, while not actually being rational. If "good enough" evidence calls for action, the rational course is to take action. Being data is never perfect, calls to wait for even better evidence can be kept up indefinitely, as a delaying tactic from the groups that financially benefit from the delay. See "The Tobacco Industry".

But so far you haven't take me up on the suggestion to demonstrate that the article's author fabricated his data in that article

He used satellite data of the mid-troposphere. Models talk about surface temperatures. Apples to oranges, a big fudge. Honest people don't cherrypick the bad data because agrees with them while deliberately tossing the good data.

Now, if you compare surface data to models ...

Models « Open Mind

Pretty damn good, eh? And the scientists know it, which is why they pay no attention to the WUWT fudger brigade.

(and cited it as coming from a UAH professor who worked for the ICPP! The cad!)

As one of the people running the satellites admits ...

Upper Air Temperature | Remote Sensing Systems
---
All microwave sounding instruments were developed for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are typically not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality data set can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the data from the MSU, AMSU and ATMS instruments
---

That is, they have to twiddle and massage the data hard to get any result. The UAH group describes just how complicated of a task it is, converting a microwave measurement into a temperature, trying to account for clouds, time of day, sun angle, water vapor, drifting instruments, changing satellites and a host of other problems.

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.06Nov2014

Compared to that, the surface station data is very straightforward, being such stations directly measure temperature on the surface. That's why the surface data is universally considered to be the gold standard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Occam's razor should tell you to "look to the money". .

You misapply Occams Razor. It is a principle of reason in Science where, all other facts being equal, one chooses the simplest theory, i.e. the one that requires the fewest assumptions or unseen mechanisms.

This 'looking to the money' crap is not science, it is nothing to do with Occaams Razor and it is actually a form of ad hominem false reason.

 

[JimBowie1958]

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infrared radiation.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased almost 40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution with no evident natural cause.

Therefore, if the trend continues, an anthropogenic increase in global temperatures is inevitable.

Here is a more symbolic restatement of your syllogism.

A causes B

A has increased 40%

Therefore any magnitude of increased B is due to cause A.

So we have the Correlation Fallacy. Just because A causes B, it does not follow that when we see B it was primarily caused by A or caused by a at all. For exampole, we know that drowning deaths cause the corpses to be wet, but that does not mean that every wet corpse has died by drowning.

We also have Third Cause Fallacy. Simply because A causes B, it does not follow that A is the only cause of B. Cause X might also cause B at much higher frequencies and magnitudes and is the principle of cause of B, thus altering A does nothing to lower B significantly. We observe that cars with empty beer cans in them are found in DWI accidents at high frequencies. But it does not follow that banning open containers of beer has any significant impact on lowering DWI accidents.

We also have a type of Composition Fallacy, as you argue that A causes B without proving that A is the only or primary cause of B. My cigarette lighter causes heart. My lit cigarette lighter is in the oven, therefore the heat of the oven is due to the lite cigarette lighter.

And last of all, as best I can see, we have the Fallacy of the Single Cause. If X, Y and Z also cause B, then one needs to address why those causes are irrelevant to the increase in B.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you're going to make a claim like that, extraordinary proof should be required, .

No, that is a Bias Fallacy. The same amount of proof is required for any theory, no matter how weird or extraordinary you may think it is.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The accepted theory is the theory that best explains all of the observed data. AGW theory does that. Deniers? They don't even have a theory.

Are you just abysmally ignorant or a liar?

There have been several theories I have seen, though I dont know if any have been published since the Warmistas have taken control of all the scientific publications.

Changes in solar heat, increases in geothermal activity, to plain old fraud by AGWers I have seen people seriously suggest.

I think the 'Gotsta Have Mo Grant Millions' is a very valid theory.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Except energy prices aren't rising, so nobody is getting hurt. Quite the opposite. In the 3rd world, decentralized renewables are cheaper than trying to build a grid.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)[/quote]

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

 

[JimBowie1958]

Damn near all data used everywhere is estimated or altered.

Bullshit. You keep the RAW DATA ALWAYS, and use that. 'Cleaning up the data' is a metaphor for data mining and spin and thus bad science.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I hope all your logically valid Argument 1 examples are coming along nicely! I'm very eager to see them and grateful for the learning experience.

I see a whole lot of words used to evade.

So, what data could falsify denialism?

The burden of proof is on those asserting the theory, not the critics of the theory. What you just did is a Logical Fallacy known as Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Defend you theory and prove it or it is dismissable. We dont have to prove anything.

 

[mamooth]

Bullshit. You keep the RAW DATA ALWAYS,

And it is always kept, so what on earth are you babbling about?

and use that.

Dear god, no.

When the data has known errors, as most data does, you _must_ correct it. Well, if you want to be taken seriously, that is. Failing to do so would instantly be recognized by everyone as a bonehead error at best, faking at worst.

Naturally, most deniers endorse the faking option.

 

[mamooth]

Are you just abysmally ignorant or a liar?

That's rather Inappropriate for the CDZ.

There have been several theories I have seen, though I dont know if any have been published since the Warmistas have taken control of all the scientific publications.

So it's not that your side's theories stink, it's that there's a VastSecretGlobalPlot against you. Every pack of conspiracy theories says that same thing. You're no different from flat earthers, birthers, antivaxxers, homeopaths, moon lander hoaxers, 9/11 truthers and all the rest.

Changes in solar heat,

Given solar output has gone _down_ as temperatures have climbed, that one is conclusively disproved.

increases in geothermal activity,

There's zero evidence of the thousand-fold increase in vulcanism that would be required for such a thing.

to plain old fraud by AGWers

That one is the last resort of the crazy people.

I think the 'Gotsta Have Mo Grant Millions' is a very valid theory.

For your side's "theories", that's pretty much confirmed, since that's where all the money is, and since most of your spokespeople are taking that money.

Now, the real scientists could all double their salary by lying for the shysters that have you so bamboozled, but they don't. Instead, they refuse the bribes, and that gives them added credibility.

 

[mamooth]

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

It sure is. And it was used in a sanity check test run, never for any published results. There's nothing nefarious about checking to see that code will behave as expected.

Your masters lied to you by not informing you of that.

So, what do you plan to do about that?

 

[JimBowie1958]

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

It sure is. And it was used in a sanity check test run, never for any published results. There's nothing nefarious about checking to see that code will behave as expected.

Your masters lied to you by not informing you of that.

So, what do you plan to do about that?

Kill them all, of course.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Bullshit. You keep the RAW DATA ALWAYS,

And it is always kept, so what on earth are you babbling about?

and use that.

Dear god, no.

When the data has known errors, as most data does, you _must_ correct it. Well, if you want to be taken seriously, that is. Failing to do so would instantly be recognized by everyone as a bonehead error at best, faking at worst.

Naturally, most deniers endorse the faking option.

Not me. My kids matter.

 

[westwall]

Are you just abysmally ignorant or a liar?

That's rather Inappropriate for the CDZ.

There have been several theories I have seen, though I dont know if any have been published since the Warmistas have taken control of all the scientific publications.

So it's not that your side's theories stink, it's that there's a VastSecretGlobalPlot against you. Every pack of conspiracy theories says that same thing. You're no different from flat earthers, birthers, antivaxxers, homeopaths, moon lander hoaxers, 9/11 truthers and all the rest.

Changes in solar heat,

Given solar output has gone _down_ as temperatures have climbed, that one is conclusively disproved.

increases in geothermal activity,

There's zero evidence of the thousand-fold increase in vulcanism that would be required for such a thing.

to plain old fraud by AGWers

That one is the last resort of the crazy people.

I think the 'Gotsta Have Mo Grant Millions' is a very valid theory.

For your side's "theories", that's pretty much confirmed, since that's where all the money is, and since most of your spokespeople are taking that money.

Now, the real scientists could all double their salary by lying for the shysters that have you so bamboozled, but they don't. Instead, they refuse the bribes, and that gives them added credibility.

Ummm, the global temps have remained static for 18 years. The claim that this was the warmest year "on record" is based on falsified data supposedly from a instrument that is not capable of the precision claimed in the report. Nice try but that's a fail.

 

[mamooth]

Ummm, the global temps have remained static for 18 years

Nobody outside of the conspiracy cult still bitterly clings to that crazy myth, being how it's contradicted by the data.

The claim that this was the warmest year "on record" is based on falsified data

If conspiracy theories are all a movement has left, that's a sure sign the movement is in its death throes.

supposedly from a instrument that is not capable of the precision claimed in the report.

When many measurements are averaged, the average has a precision much lower than that of the individual statistics.

Nice try but that's a fail.

That's Statistics 101 level stuff that you failed at there. And you think you can lecture the real scientists?