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

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

On Jun 23, 12:03*am, 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,

••*Are you referring to th e climate or
Hansen's academic qualifications?

- -
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.

"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?

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

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

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

On Jun 22, 1:58*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
[ . . . ]
Roger, WHO THE **** is interested in a "statistical significance" from a
chaotic system?

Scientists.

On Jun 24, 12:59Â*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jun 22, 1:58Â*pm, Peter wrote:

[ . . . ]

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

Scientists.

•• Ersatz scientists like Roger

- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.

2- the religious fanatic

If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."

3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years

There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.