Because if it was a calculated statistically significant number, he would know how important that would be to mention it! Then his claims might hold some merit! Instead, he relies solely on a graph that to him looks statistically significant but until you actually do some calculations, you can't say that it is statistically significant.
I'm merely saying that I doubt thar he has done those calculations because if he did, or if those calculations had been done, you would mention it
Malcolm Roberts claims to be a man of science. He should know that if he wanted to make his claims sound more substantiated, he could say "this is a statistically significant increase in excess deaths, I calculated the statistical significance to P < 0.05" (or < 0.01 or whatever significance value he wanted).
Again, it appears he is saying something is statistically significant based on a trend line, not a calculated number. This is what true scepticism is. Not just merely accepting his claim, but questioning and investigating.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- WHC
- Climate Change
Climate Change, page-387
-
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 691 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add WHC (ASX) to my watchlist
|
|||||
Last
$8.43 |
Change
-0.120(1.40%) |
Mkt cap ! $7.052B |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
$8.55 | $8.55 | $8.38 | $37.85M | 4.471M |
Buyers (Bids)
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
2 | 34786 | $8.42 |
Sellers (Offers)
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
$8.44 | 12724 | 3 |
View Market Depth
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
3 | 2720 | 8.400 |
4 | 16757 | 8.390 |
4 | 15667 | 8.380 |
2 | 12547 | 8.370 |
2 | 13353 | 8.360 |
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
8.440 | 7454 | 2 |
8.470 | 13973 | 3 |
8.480 | 12353 | 2 |
8.490 | 13353 | 2 |
8.500 | 11353 | 1 |
Last trade - 16.10pm 18/07/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
Featured News
WHC (ASX) Chart |