Pinheads conned.....

[Cancel 2016.2]

I think it's so funny how SF hurls all of these insults at you and you just totally ignore them and answer the post.

Please tell me how he answered. The data has been posted 1000 times. One of the leading climatologists that fear mongers the man made global warming myth even stated there has been no statistically significant warming over that period.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

The last sentence is the general cop out used by the fear mongers to say 'yeah, we are wrong, but please look at our 50 year data rather than ten, because it looks better for us, but don't look longer than 120 years, because then we look like schmucks again.'

Dung will ignore the above yet again, just as Cypress and Mutt and other fear mongering disciples do every single time it is posted.

 

[Bonestorm]

DH, Top retired to smoke pot all day. He could have gotten it anywhere and I expect a lot more where that came from!

Things suddenly make a whole lot more sense. I was sure as shit that the Dude and topspin were the same person, but then The Dude started posting shit that would have made no sense coming from topper. The retirement and smoke pot all day factor explains a lot, not that there's anything wrong with retiring and smoking pot all day.

 

[Bonestorm]

Please tell me how he answered. The data has been posted 1000 times. One of the leading climatologists that fear mongers the man made global warming myth even stated there has been no statistically significant warming over that period.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm



The last sentence is the general cop out used by the fear mongers to say 'yeah, we are wrong, but please look at our 50 year data rather than ten, because it looks better for us, but don't look longer than 120 years, because then we look like schmucks again.'

Dung will ignore the above yet again, just as Cypress and Mutt and other fear mongering disciples do every single time it is posted.

What's the date on that article and what happens when you add 2010 to the equation?

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.

Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.

But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real".

Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

Your apology will be accepted upon offer.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes, you can. Good one, but I thought you weren't questioning whether warming occurred prior to 1998 so why would you?

You are quite the douche bag. I am not questioning whether there was warming from the mid century-1997 time frame. What part of the specific time frames are you failing to grasp? I have never stated that prior to the mid century upturn that warming was consistent. If you are going to continue with your bullshit and ignore the specific time frames as I discuss them then what is the point? Other than your continuation of being a douche bag?

Also, please get back to me on the statistical significance question. I'd like to see your analysis.

I posted Phil Jones, leading climate fear monger, answer to that very question. Though at the time he answered it was 95-2009, but the data has not gone up from 09.

 

[Bonestorm]

You are quite the douche bag. I am not questioning whether there was warming from the mid century-1997 time frame. What part of the specific time frames are you failing to grasp? I have never stated that prior to the mid century upturn that warming was consistent. If you are going to continue with your bullshit and ignore the specific time frames as I discuss them then what is the point? Other than your continuation of being a douche bag?



I posted Phil Jones, leading climate fear monger, answer to that very question. Though at the time he answered it was 95-2009, but the data has not gone up from 09.

Hilarious.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What's the date on that article and what happens when you add 2010 to the equation?

Was 2010 significantly higher than those found in the 1997-2011 time frame? No, it was not.

Your apology will be accepted upon offer.

Apologize for what douche bag? He SAYS longer is better and it is. Yet try and get him to talk about the medieval warming period or the 400,000 year ice core samples and what do you get? More excuses on why those LONGER periods shouldn't be used. He is cherry picking the time frame that tells the story he wants to tell. It does not change the FACT that there has been no statistically significant warming over the past 14 years. He wants everyone to look at the chart that tells the story he wants to tell. In other words, he is shaping the data to fit the story... something NO honest scientist would do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

[/quote]

I would love to see how he reaches the conclusion that 15 years of data is too short, but that somehow 16 is long enough. What a crock of shit. Like I stated, he will say anything to get the data to fit his story.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Clearly I was refering to the timespan referenced by your graph, hackarama.

You would do well to address scientific issues in a cool dispassionate manner, there is far too much emotion and ego massaging going on already. That, by the way, applies to all posters not just you.

 

[Bonestorm]

Was 2010 significantly higher than those found in the 1997-2011 time frame? No, it was not.

2010 was the warmest year on record.

Apologize for what douche bag? He SAYS longer is better and it is. Yet try and get him to talk about the medieval warming period or the 400,000 year ice core samples and what do you get? More excuses on why those LONGER periods shouldn't be used. He is cherry picking the time frame that tells the story he wants to tell. It does not change the FACT that there has been no statistically significant warming over the past 14 years. He wants everyone to look at the chart that tells the story he wants to tell. In other words, he is shaping the data to fit the story... something NO honest scientist would do.

He says that warming is statistically significant, contrary to your claim.

I would love to see how he reaches the conclusion that 15 years of data is too short, but that somehow 16 is long enough. What a crock of shit. Like I stated, he will say anything to get the data to fit his story.

Hilarious. He didn't lie get the data to fit his story in 2009 but suddenly he had a change of heart in 2010? Or maybe he convinced the world to warm up a but in 2010 to make the statistical analysis result in a finding of statistical significance.

You've got the data. Run your own regression analysis and let me know what you come up with, hotshot.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

2010 was the warmest year on record.

2010 is NOT statistically significantly different than 1998 or 2005. Period.

He says that warming is statistically significant, contrary to your claim.

I used his exact words. You found an article where he says the opposite. Where 15 years is too short, but 16 is ok. He is full of shit and I appreciate you posting the second article that demonstrates that.

Hilarious. He didn't lie get the data to fit his story in 2009 but suddenly he had a change of heart in 2010? Or maybe he convinced the world to warm up a but in 2010 to make the statistical analysis result in a finding of statistical significance.

No, and he caught a lot of flack from the fear mongers for stating it. Suddenly he thinks there IS statistically significant warming with that extra year of data. Bottom line, as I stated, he is full of shit.

You've got the data. Run your own regression analysis and let me know what you come up with, hotshot.

So you can ignore it? Yeah... tell you what... you run it and post it if you think it true. I'll wait.

 

[Bonestorm]

2010 is NOT statistically significantly different than 1998 or 2005. Period.

That is true, but it's irrelevant. 2010 is another data point that renders the warming experience in the period in question as statistically significant.

I used his exact words. You found an article where he says the opposite. Where 15 years is too short, but 16 is ok. He is full of shit and I appreciate you posting the second article that demonstrates that.

He was correct on both occasions. It isn't a matter of 15 years being too short and 16 years being ok. If 2010 were the same as 2009, the result would be no statistically significant warming. Because 2010 is tied for the warmest on record, it changes the slope of the curve to statistical significance.

No, and he caught a lot of flack from the fear mongers for stating it. Suddenly he thinks there IS statistically significant warming with that extra year of data. Bottom line, as I stated, he is full of shit.

He doesn't think anything. It isn't as though he just dreams this stuff up. It's simple regression analysis using the observed temperatures. Anyone can do it. Even you! The result, when you add 2010 to the equation, is a finding of statistical significance.

So you can ignore it? Yeah... tell you what... you run it and post it if you think it true. I'll wait.

Give it a shot, SF. I know I'm right. You seem to be foundering a little bit. Just a short while it was "facts" this and "data" that. Now you're reverting back to your traditional method of argument, name calling. Well, let's see your facts and data.

 

[zappasguitar]

I think it's so funny how SF hurls all of these insults at you and you just totally ignore them and answer the post.

Aint it hysterical?

Is it REALLY that difficult for some to refrain from the petty taunts and personal insults?

TWO posters in this debate can't complete a sentence without filling it with the most vicious personal insults anyone has hurled, simply because someone has dared to question their "evidence"; while one poster seems to be sticking exclusively to the facts...yet the dude and SF wonder why I people don't buy into their claims that AGW is a hoax.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Aint it hysterical?

Is it REALLY that difficult for some to refrain from the petty taunts and personal insults?

TWO posters in this debate can't complete a sentence without filling it with the most vicious personal insults anyone has hurled, simply because someone has dared to question their "evidence"; while one poster seems to be sticking exclusively to the facts...yet the dude and SF wonder why I people don't buy into their claims that AGW is a hoax.

Science is not advanced by ego, malice or personal gain at least not in the long term. I frankly have huge doubts about the science that surrounds this debate and can declare that I'm not in the pay of Exxon et al. I will only say that anything that Goldman Sachs supports so enthusiastically, such their advocacy for carbon trading needs to looked at exceedingly closely.

There are genuine questions about the lack of sunspots in Solar Cycle 24, the fact we may be entering a new Maunder Minimum is not going to answered by short term political posturing and self interested parties.

 

[NOVA]

Science is not advanced by ego, malice or personal gain at least not in the long term. I frankly have huge doubts about the science that surrounds this debate and can declare that I'm not in the pay of Exxon et al. I will only say that anything that Goldman Sachs supports so enthusiastically, such their advocacy for carbon trading needs to looked at exceedingly closely.

There are genuine questions about the lack of sunspots in Solar Cycle 24, the fact we may be entering a new Maunder Minimum is not going to answered by short term political posturing and self interested parties.

Wasn't carbon trading the love child of Al Gore ?......He supported and pushed that crap every time he spoke about 'global warming'......and he used it to his advantage .....

 

[cancel2 2022]

Wasn't carbon trading the love child of Al Gore ?......He supported and pushed that crap every time he spoke about 'global warming'......and he used it to his advantage .....

I distrust anything that is so enthusiastically advanced by those that would profit immensely from its inception. It does seem odd to consider that Al Gore and Goldman Sachs are in bed together.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Aint it hysterical?

Is it REALLY that difficult for some to refrain from the petty taunts and personal insults?

TWO posters in this debate can't complete a sentence without filling it with the most vicious personal insults anyone has hurled, simply because someone has dared to question their "evidence"; while one poster seems to be sticking exclusively to the facts...yet the dude and SF wonder why I people don't buy into their claims that AGW is a hoax.

it is hysterical how once again you whine about others not debating....while offering zero debate

 

[cancel2 2022]

it is hysterical how once again you whine about others not debating....while offering zero debate

Can I ask you to enter the debate without rancour, diatribes or being personal? That applies to everybody else as well.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Can I ask you to enter the debate without rancour, diatribes or being personal? That applies to everybody else as well.

can i ask you to stop being mother goose?

 

[zappasguitar]

it is hysterical how once again you whine about others not debating....while offering zero debate

What?

Have I given ANYONE my word that I would be civil?

No...that wasn't me.,..now who was it??

Gimme a minute, it will come to me.

 

[cancel2 2022]

can i ask you to stop being mother goose?

If I can lay the occasional golden egg, then my work is done.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What?

Have I given ANYONE my word that I would be civil?

No...that wasn't me.,..now who was it??

Gimme a minute, it will come to me.

i don't know..who was it? if you claiming my promise to not insult = civil, then since you admitted i did not insult, i was civil. regardless, i was civil, you're just a fucking pansy who knows his claim is wrong so you will run around the entire board whining and lying about what i said so you don't have to debate your incorrect statement. you do though constantly whine about others not being civil, while rarely being civil yourself.

i know you will never understand the point though.

btw...have anything to say about the thread topic?