Aoxomoxoa (05-08-2012)
http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/y...n-flawed-data/
Climate science by the team is an exercise in deception
Aoxomoxoa (05-08-2012)
CONSENSUS!!!!
that is all
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
too bad the CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) crowd doesn't bother to read the links. SM explains very clearly how the climate team first perform an analysis of tree ring density using the entire sample of 400 trees, but later decide to use only 12 trees from the set.
chron_siteadj2.jpg
They refuse to read that which shows they have been lied to. They prefer shouting consensus and pretending the earth is flat.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
side note... just in case you missed the latest in fear mongering from Hansen...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/op...e-climate.html
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
Bookmarks