Tyler Cowen offering a reason why the CRU hacked emails should raise our confidence in AGW...
That's not what he is saying. His argument is not that the hacked emails actually should raise our confidence in AGW. His argument is that there is a possible scenario under which this should happen, and the probability that this scenario is true is not infinitesimal
Right -- that is what I called "giving a reason why the hacked emails..." and I believe that characterization is accurate: he's described a reason why they would raise our confidence in AGW.
The alternative possibility - that the scientists really are smearing the opposition with no good reason - is far more likely, and thus the net effect on our posteriors is to reduce them
This is reason why Tyler's argument for a positive Bayes factor is in error, not a reason why my characterization was inaccurate.
I think we agree on the substance.
The alternative possibility - that the scientists really are smearing the opposition with no good reason - is far more likely, and thus the net effect on our posteriors is to reduce them
This is reason why Tyler's argument for a positive Bayes factor is in error, not a reason why my characterization was inaccurate.
Tyler isn't arguing for a positive Bayes factor. (I assume that by "Bayes factor" you mean the net effect on the posterior probability). He posted a followup because many people misunderstood him. Excerpt:
...I did not try to justi
ITT we talk about whatever.