Michael Tobis wrote: > > That's great! Now how about if you explain it a little more > didactically so the rest of us can get it?
It's probably a bit long and tedious to post here in all its tedium, but I've expanded my jihad (:-), see the comment) into an as-yet-incomplete series of blog posts starting with: <http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-on-detection-attribution-and.html> I'm about to issue the full fatwa :-) If that is too stodgy, IMO the most immediately compelling illustration is simply to note that when measuring a non-negative value (like mass, or speed, or energy) then a confidence interval which does not exclude zero - which may arise very naturally if measurements are inaccurate - does not in any way imply a belief that the value is actually negative with non-zero probability! James --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
