On 04/14/2011 02:39 AM, Falcon wrote:
In articlede2ee785-5cd2-4908-a437-23253c22ae93
@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 13, 2:35 pm, wrote:
In article95db4a50-35c6-45b8-8cc9-ce012ffea5e1

@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 12, 10:22 am, wrote:
In articled47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-

, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, 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.

What I said was that examining the latest data on its own can neither
show, nor can it not show, anything whatsoever. In other words, it
definitely cannot,"NOT show "continued warming" " It cannot be subjected
to any meaningful analysis in any way shape or form, so no statements can
be made.

You made a statement based on it. You erred in doing so, so fess up
like a man, or alternatively admit you are baffled by the logic of
statistical inference.

Good grief, this is pedantic nonsense. If you're saying that Roger's
subject line is factually incorrect, i.e. that the latest MSU data cannot
be said to show continued warming, any more that they can show that there
has been no warming, or even cooling, then we agree. That much should have
been patently obvious. The sole reason for my response was that the subject
line is misleading.


For student philosophers looking for good examples of fallacies,
alt.global-warming is a great place to start.
What you are saying is that Roger is indulging in the so-called post
hoc fallacy by implication -the Satellite MSU Data are so-and-so,
therefore warming continues. In a formal sense, this is correct - the
observation that the sun rose this morning like every day as long as
anyone can remember leads most people to the fallacious conclusion that
the sun will rise tomorrow.
However, where the fallacial arguments really take off is when we see
people applying the fallacy of false dichotomy - because Roger's
statement is not sound in the strict logical sense, it must be false -
therefore it's cooling!