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
$6.17 |
Change
-0.360(5.51%) |
Mkt cap ! $5.161B |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
$6.20 | $6.26 | $6.12 | $41.40M | 6.689M |
Buyers (Bids)
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
20 | 16670 | $6.16 |
Sellers (Offers)
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
$6.17 | 39542 | 38 |
View Market Depth
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
20 | 16789 | 6.160 |
24 | 38822 | 6.150 |
25 | 77583 | 6.140 |
33 | 102068 | 6.130 |
34 | 72772 | 6.120 |
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
6.170 | 40986 | 40 |
6.180 | 61961 | 25 |
6.190 | 79934 | 22 |
6.200 | 33988 | 11 |
6.210 | 95195 | 6 |
Last trade - 15.00pm 04/09/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
Featured News
WHC (ASX) Chart |