On Jun 25, 3:33*am, "Jerry Okamura" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
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.

Dictionary definition of the word "pertinent"...having some connection to
the matter at hand

Exactly. What's your point though?

Fran

On Jun 23, 11:55*am, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
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

Aha! So you concede you cannot directly disput it. Right? Answer
the question you evasive retard.

On Jun 27, 2:59*am, Claudius Denk wrote:
On Jun 23, 11:55*am, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
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

Aha! *So you concede you cannot directly disput it. *Right? *Answer
the question you evasive retard.

•• why do you compliment that beast with "evasive retard"???

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

"Claudius Denk" wrote in message
...
On Jun 23, 11:55 am, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
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

Aha! So you concede you cannot directly disput it. Right? Answer
the question you evasive retard.

Do you really want me to do that? If I did that, would you respond to each
and every point I will make?