On May 12, 5:38*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On May 11, 7:45*pm, "BobLl" wrote:
[ . . . ]
Note the precipitous cooling trend since 2000. *Show me any other place on
the graph where a similar set of points was not indicative of an actual
trend.
[ . . . ]
Shows cooling since 2002 and that current temperature is around the average
since 1979. *No crisis to be seen.

Statements like yours above separate you, who
interpet your hormones, from the scientists,
who use statistics.

Given the variance in global climate data sets,
anyone who claims a climate trend on only 8 or
6 years of data is an uneducated fool.

Your local junior college probably offers an
introductory course in statistics. There you
would learn about variance and significance.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
Please see:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

What a bunch of crap.

"Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer than they were 100
years ago."


""In the real world, outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and
lies""

So it must be the fossil fuel industry spin machine that says that CO2
was about 289ppm until anthropogenic sources began, and that this
level of CO2 in the atmosphere causes 7.4 degreesC of warming that
would not occur without CO2. Yet it is claimed that now there is 383
ppm. This is a 33% increase. It should therefore cause 2.4degC of
warming.

What a coincidence that this is the predicted warming from the IPCC.

If one claims that any of the warming trend of the 90's is caused by
CO2, then where the hell is the 2.4deg, and why did CO2 stop causing
warming in the 50's and 60's, and in the last ten years? In US
statistics, we are not warmer than the 30's, although the 'spin
machine' insists on only reviewing statistics back 50 years.

Time for poppycock to drag out his false correlation of CO2 to
temperatures.
Not only is there no substantiation of cause and effect, the
temperature statistics cannot be correlated with the supposed CO2
levels at all without serious omission of the actual fact.

Poppycock has proposed 'Hansen's pipeline', or somewhere that this
energy is stored as the reason that it cannot be detected. Others
claim the melting ice is soaking up all the heat. This does nothing to
explain why local temperatures do not show the warming trend from the
thirties that appears in Hansens rendition of the worldwide average.

Believers such as poppycock must relegate all information that does
not suit their beleifs to the Exxon devil as they believe anything at
all, however unsupported, that comes from the science of climate
scaremongering and the profit motives thereof.

KD