On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:35:38 +0100, Falcon
wrote:

In article 95db4a50-35c6-45b8-8cc9-ce012ffea5e1
@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 12, 10:22*am, Falcon wrote:
In article d47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-

, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, Falcon wrote:

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw
pretty graphs, but in this example
http://i55.tinypic.com/iwrg35.png you can see how useful a linear
trend line is, depending on what you want to show. The data is from
Roger's thoughtfully provided source. I added another trend line
that's probably a little more representative of what's been
happening lately.

You're cherrypicking, again R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

So are you. You're using an entire record to show "continued warming",
when clearly, the latest records do not show that it's "continuing".

Why are you continuing with this "canard" ? The latest records can show
neither warming, cooling or flat, because the scatter about any trend
line drawn, however robust that might be in statistical terms, is too
great to allow meaningful inference.

Data for the last twenty years allows meaningful inference. It shows
warming is highly likely to have taken place. Data for the last thirty
years shows warming to be so likely, that any proposal it has not warmed
would be unthinkable.

Because, as I have said several times, the entire satellite record shows
warming, but the latest data does NOT show "continued warming".

Which is precisely what YOU just said.

And as you know, "the latest data" is not an indicator of climate
change.