"Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message
...
Eric Gisin wrote:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view...le=9075&page=0

By Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW


Can't refute what was said?

On Jun 23, 9:17*am, "Jerry Okamura" wrote:
What has statistics got to do with the question?


If you have to ask ... sigh

anyhoo ... Interpreting the data so that it is meaningful demands a
grasp of climate-pertinent statistics. If you aren't aware of what is
relevant and what is not you might think that climate included the
difference in temperature happening on a single day.

The proposers cited by the OP took data made noisy by El Nino, and La
Nina and the movement in the solar cycle and tried to pretend this was
"climate" so as to pose their question.

Fran

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:00:27 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:

On Jun 23, 9:17Â*am, "Jerry Okamura" wrote:
What has statistics got to do with the question?


If you have to ask ... sigh

anyhoo ... Interpreting the data so that it is meaningful demands a
grasp of climate-pertinent statistics. If you aren't aware of what is
relevant and what is not you might think that climate included the
difference in temperature happening on a single day.

The proposers cited by the OP took data made noisy by El Nino, and La
Nina and the movement in the solar cycle and tried to pretend this was
"climate" so as to pose their question.

Fran

And Jams Hansen has spent millions of NASA money
to be able to say "it has warmed half a degree.

Half a degree,

we're all gonna die!

On Jun 23, 2:03*pm, What A. Fool wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:00:27 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:





On Jun 23, 9:17*am, "Jerry Okamura" wrote:
What has statistics got to do with the question?

If you have to ask ... sigh

anyhoo ... Interpreting the data so that it is meaningful demands a
grasp of climate-pertinent statistics. If you aren't aware of what is
relevant and what is not you might think that climate included the
difference in temperature happening on a single day.

The proposers cited by the OP took data made noisy by El Nino, and La
Nina and the movement in the solar cycle and tried to pretend this was
"climate" so as to pose their question.

Fran

* * * * * And Jams Hansen has spent millions of NASA money
to be able to say "it has warmed half a degree.

* * * * *Half a degree,

* * * * * we're all gonna die

0.73degC actually ... and if that were the end of it, then we could
live with that, but of course it's just the harbinger of what is to
come -- probably at least 2degC by 2100 and possibly as much as 5degC.

Fran

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

This piece of crap repeats the insufficient
data fallacy at least three times. Take a
introductory statistics course.

On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view...le=9075&page=0

[ . . . ]
The three simple questions that were posed we

1.. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998
whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why
did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to
blame for dangerous levels of warming?

There was no statistically significant cooling since 1998,
an extrem El Nino warming event.

Roger, WHO THE **** is interested in a "statistical significance"
from a chaotic system?

Certainly not Petey the Liar. lol

Falcon wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

This piece of crap repeats the insufficient
data fallacy at least three times. Take a
introductory statistics course.

On Jun 22, 10:19 am, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view...le=9075&page=0
[...]
2.. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between
1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were
not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred

It take 30 years to establish a statistically significant climate
trend.

I agree Roger. Well said. On that basis alone we can ignore government
alarmists, such as the US.GCRP or the UK Met Office, who now insist
that their "new predictions" indicate that our climate is changing
much faster than predicted in IPCC AR4 (2007).

No, I'm afraid that does not follow.

What A. Fool wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:00:27 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:

On Jun 23, 9:17 am, "Jerry Okamura"
wrote:
What has statistics got to do with the question?


If you have to ask ... sigh

anyhoo ... Interpreting the data so that it is meaningful demands a
grasp of climate-pertinent statistics. If you aren't aware of what is
relevant and what is not you might think that climate included the
difference in temperature happening on a single day.

The proposers cited by the OP took data made noisy by El Nino, and La
Nina and the movement in the solar cycle and tried to pretend this
was "climate" so as to pose their question.

Fran

And Jams Hansen has spent millions of NASA money
to be able to say "it has warmed half a degree.

Half a degree,

we're all gonna die!

This is what deniers call 'logic'. lol

Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message
...
Eric Gisin wrote:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view...le=9075&page=0

By Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW


Can't refute what was said?

See alt.global-warming for previous extended debunkings of each issue, and
evidence damning each denialist liar.

"Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message
...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message
...
Eric Gisin wrote:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view...le=9075&page=0

By Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW


Can't refute what was said?

See alt.global-warming for previous extended debunkings of each issue,
and evidence damning each denialist liar.

It is a whole lot better to directly refute what was said, then to reference
what someone else said.

"Fran" wrote in message
...
On Jun 23, 9:17 am, "Jerry Okamura" wrote:
What has statistics got to do with the question?


If you have to ask ... sigh

anyhoo ... Interpreting the data so that it is meaningful demands a
grasp of climate-pertinent statistics. If you aren't aware of what is
relevant and what is not you might think that climate included the
difference in temperature happening on a single day.

The proposers cited by the OP took data made noisy by El Nino, and La
Nina and the movement in the solar cycle and tried to pretend this was
"climate" so as to pose their question.

"If" the statistics clearly supported the theory, there would be no
disagreement about the theory would it?