Jerry Okamura wrote:
"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?

Why, is it your belief that no money is involved? lol

Jerry Okamura wrote:
"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.

It is a whole lot better to do some introductory reading about the issue
than to come onto a science group pretending that those of us who are
intinmately familiar with it need to respond to crackpot lie articles when
all the information has been posted repeatedly here.

Let me give you a quick example, based on the first of these "tough
questions" from the article:

"Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global
temperature cooled over the same period?

(In fact, it did not, until 2007-08. This is one of the article's lies.)

If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be
to blame for dangerous levels of warming?"

Now, that was posed by four supposed climate authorities, yes?

Now, how often has the first answer been discussed in this group? 1,710
results in Google:

http://tinyurl.com/nzp2jf

How often on the web? About 320,000 times, says Google:

http://tinyurl.com/lu82y8

So, do you feel dumber not knowing the answer yourself when everyone else
who is interested does, or dumber for trusting four supposed climate experts
who are pretending they don't in order to dupe you?

Here's the answer, BTW.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-231

On Jun 24, 3:11*am, "Jerry Okamura" wrote:
"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?

Again, you miss the point. What are the *relevant* statistics is the
issue. Just citing any thing that looks like a statistic either tells
us nothing of interest or may not mean what someone lacking
statistical insight infers it means.

As far as I can tell, the *relevant* statistics amply support the
theory, but the deniers want to bring other statistics to the table --
some of them plainly dodgy and base their disagreement on that.


Fran

That is much better.

"Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message
...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"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.

It is a whole lot better to do some introductory reading about the issue
than to come onto a science group pretending that those of us who are
intinmately familiar with it need to respond to crackpot lie articles when
all the information has been posted repeatedly here.

Let me give you a quick example, based on the first of these "tough
questions" from the article:

"Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global
temperature cooled over the same period?

(In fact, it did not, until 2007-08. This is one of the article's lies.)

If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions
be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?"

Now, that was posed by four supposed climate authorities, yes?

Now, how often has the first answer been discussed in this group? 1,710
results in Google:

http://tinyurl.com/nzp2jf

How often on the web? About 320,000 times, says Google:

http://tinyurl.com/lu82y8

So, do you feel dumber not knowing the answer yourself when everyone else
who is interested does, or dumber for trusting four supposed climate
experts who are pretending they don't in order to dupe you?

Here's the answer, BTW.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-231

"Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message
...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"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?

Why, is it your belief that no money is involved? lol


Money is involved in both cases, so since money is involved in both cases,
my question stands. Money influcences those who believe in the theory, and
money influcences those who do not believe in the theory.

"Fran" wrote in message
...
On Jun 24, 3:11 am, "Jerry Okamura" wrote:
"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?

Again, you miss the point. What are the *relevant* statistics is the
issue. Just citing any thing that looks like a statistic either tells
us nothing of interest or may not mean what someone lacking
statistical insight infers it means.

As far as I can tell, the *relevant* statistics amply support the
theory, but the deniers want to bring other statistics to the table --
some of them plainly dodgy and base their disagreement on that.


No statistics are just statistics. Statistics can be used to support the
theory and statistics can be used to prove the theory is wrong. The
"relevant" question is which statistics are correct. But in the end, it
really does not matter who is right or who is wrong. Time will tell who is
right and who is wrong, because the reality is, no one is going to really do
what is required to prevent the event from happening. So, if the theory is
right, it WILL happen, and if the theory is wrong it WILL NOT happen.

On Jun 24, 12:16*pm, "Jerry Okamura"
wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Jun 24, 3:11 am, "Jerry Okamura" wrote:





"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?

Again, you miss the point. What are the *relevant* statistics is the
issue. Just citing any thing that looks like a statistic either tells
us nothing of interest or may not mean what someone lacking
statistical insight infers it means.

As far as I can tell, the *relevant* statistics amply support the
theory, but the deniers want to bring other statistics to the table --
some of them plainly dodgy and base their disagreement on that.

No statistics are just statistics. *Statistics can be used to support the
theory and statistics can be used to prove the theory is wrong. *The
"relevant" question is which statistics are correct. *

This is where you are going wrong, consistently. Both sets of
statistics *could* be correct but only one set might be pertinent.

For example, if I examined a poll in order to help decide who was
winning an election contest, and one poll turned out to be a sample in
which a handful of people were sampled in a place where there was a
serious risk of data bias (eg too many of one type of person; one
party aloyalty) and the other had been conducted on a much larger
scale and the poll participants selected to reflect the likely
composition of the voter pool, then the latter might be a good guide
while the former would be unreliable, even though both sets of results
could be accurate.


But in the end, it
really does not matter who is right or who is wrong. *

Yes it does, because if the wrong set of policies are followed people
will be worse off than was imposed by circumstances beyond our
control.

Time will tell who is
right and who is wrong, because the reality is, no one is going to really do
what is required to prevent the event from happening. *

That's not clear at all. You could be right, and indeed, I suspect
that it will be a case of too little too late, but that is after all,
one of the reasons that these debates are often so intense. Those of
us who care about the fate of our descendents are very keen to ensure
that mitigation is done on the right scale at the right time, and the
cultural warriors on the other side are determined to stymie all
action and damn the consequences.


So, if the theory is
right, it WILL happen, and if the theory is wrong it WILL NOT happen

That's pure fatalism -- and not how humans work. Rational people try
to foreclose disasters.

Fran

Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message
...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"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?

Why, is it your belief that no money is involved? lol


Money is involved in both cases, so since money is involved in both
cases, my question stands. Money influcences those who believe in
the theory, and money influcences those who do not believe in the
theory.

Thanks, but that just makes your question more stupid.

Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message
...
On Jun 24, 3:11 am, "Jerry Okamura" wrote:
"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?

Again, you miss the point. What are the *relevant* statistics is the
issue. Just citing any thing that looks like a statistic either tells
us nothing of interest or may not mean what someone lacking
statistical insight infers it means.

As far as I can tell, the *relevant* statistics amply support the
theory, but the deniers want to bring other statistics to the table --
some of them plainly dodgy and base their disagreement on that.


No statistics are just statistics. Statistics can be used to support
the theory and statistics can be used to prove the theory is wrong.

Nope.


The "relevant" question is which statistics are correct. But in the
end, it really does not matter who is right or who is wrong.

It will matter to billions.

Jerry Okamura wrote:
That is much better.

Perhaps, but all you really need to know is:

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

Not scientific, perhaps, but effective filtering nonetheless.



"Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message
...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"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.

It is a whole lot better to do some introductory reading about the
issue than to come onto a science group pretending that those of us
who are intinmately familiar with it need to respond to crackpot lie
articles when all the information has been posted repeatedly here.

Let me give you a quick example, based on the first of these "tough
questions" from the article:

"Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst
global temperature cooled over the same period?

(In fact, it did not, until 2007-08. This is one of the article's
lies.) If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human
emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?"

Now, that was posed by four supposed climate authorities, yes?

Now, how often has the first answer been discussed in this group? 1,710
results in Google:

http://tinyurl.com/nzp2jf

How often on the web? About 320,000 times, says Google:

http://tinyurl.com/lu82y8

So, do you feel dumber not knowing the answer yourself when
everyone else who is interested does, or dumber for trusting four
supposed climate experts who are pretending they don't in order to
dupe you? Here's the answer, BTW.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-231