Are all "climate change" bets off, now that the earth has shifted on its axis?

[edthecynic]

Noted, for the record, that you have no understanding of scientific articles. Also noted, that self declared winners of debates are sure losers.

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

Phil Jones, (the worlds foremost expert on ManMade Global Warming): Yes..."

The interview took place Feb 2010

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

This post is a perfect example of what SHAMELESS lying SCUM CON$ervatives are!!!!!!!!!

You posted this lie earlier in this thread, as you have at least a dozen other times in other threads, and I nailed you on this lie as I have in all those threads only to have you knowingly repeat the lie yet again. You are a perfect example of why NO honest person believes anything a CON$ervative ever says!
Thank you.

Here is the post I made to the first time you posted this CON$ervative lie in this thread:

How many times have I nailed you on this very same lie only for you to post it on another thread?????????

CON$ love to lie by telling just enough truth, and then shutting up!!!!!!

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.

 

[westwall]

Noted, for the record, that you have no understanding of scientific articles. Also noted, that self declared winners of debates are sure losers.

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

Phil Jones, (the worlds foremost expert on ManMade Global Warming): Yes..."

The interview took place Feb 2010

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

This post is a perfect example of what SHAMELESS lying SCUM CON$ervatives are!!!!!!!!!

You posted this lie earlier in this thread, as you have at least a dozen other times in other threads, and I nailed you on this lie as I have in all those threads only to have you knowingly repeat the lie yet again. You are a perfect example of why NO honest person believes anything a CON$ervative ever says!
Thank you.

Here is the post I made to the first time you posted this CON$ervative lie in this thread:

How many times have I nailed you on this very same lie only for you to post it on another thread?????????

CON$ love to lie by telling just enough truth, and then shutting up!!!!!!

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.

I am going to make this as simple as I can for you.....the question was "there has been no statistically-significant global warming" Jones asnwered truthfully. .12C is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WHETHER IT IS UP OR DOWN. No one lied you fool!

 

[edthecynic]

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

Phil Jones, (the worlds foremost expert on ManMade Global Warming): Yes..."

The interview took place Feb 2010

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

This post is a perfect example of what SHAMELESS lying SCUM CON$ervatives are!!!!!!!!!

You posted this lie earlier in this thread, as you have at least a dozen other times in other threads, and I nailed you on this lie as I have in all those threads only to have you knowingly repeat the lie yet again. You are a perfect example of why NO honest person believes anything a CON$ervative ever says!
Thank you.

Here is the post I made to the first time you posted this CON$ervative lie in this thread:

How many times have I nailed you on this very same lie only for you to post it on another thread?????????

CON$ love to lie by telling just enough truth, and then shutting up!!!!!!

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.

I am going to make this as simple as I can for you.....the question was "there has been no statistically-significant global warming" Jones asnwered truthfully. .12C is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WHETHER IT IS UP OR DOWN. No one lied you fool!

Again we see a typical CON$ervative tactic; when caught lying, play dumb and keep on lying!!!

Clearly the quote is saying the only thing keeping the POPSITIVE warming trend value from being 95% significant is just a LITTLE more time. The way the original CON$ervative liar edited the quote it appears to say there was no warming, and you know it!

 

[boedicca]

Bought and paid for by Big Danish!

I'll have a cup of joe with those!

 

[westwall]

This post is a perfect example of what SHAMELESS lying SCUM CON$ervatives are!!!!!!!!!

You posted this lie earlier in this thread, as you have at least a dozen other times in other threads, and I nailed you on this lie as I have in all those threads only to have you knowingly repeat the lie yet again. You are a perfect example of why NO honest person believes anything a CON$ervative ever says!
Thank you.

Here is the post I made to the first time you posted this CON$ervative lie in this thread:

I am going to make this as simple as I can for you.....the question was "there has been no statistically-significant global warming" Jones asnwered truthfully. .12C is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WHETHER IT IS UP OR DOWN. No one lied you fool!

Again we see a typical CON$ervative tactic; when caught lying, play dumb and keep on lying!!!

Clearly the quote is saying the only thing keeping the POPSITIVE warming trend value from being 95% significant is just a LITTLE more time. The way the original CON$ervative liar edited the quote it appears to say there was no warming, and you know it!

No, you ignoramus. .12 is within the margin of error. You could it is up or down and be correct. Jones chose to say it was up because that conforms with his paradigm. However he could just as easily said it was down and been just as correct. Are you so blind you can't see that?

 

[edthecynic]

I am going to make this as simple as I can for you.....the question was "there has been no statistically-significant global warming" Jones asnwered truthfully. .12C is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WHETHER IT IS UP OR DOWN. No one lied you fool!

Again we see a typical CON$ervative tactic; when caught lying, play dumb and keep on lying!!!

Clearly the quote is saying the only thing keeping the POPSITIVE warming trend value from being 95% significant is just a LITTLE more time. The way the original CON$ervative liar edited the quote it appears to say there was no warming, and you know it!

No, you ignoramus. .12 is within the margin of error. You could it is up or down and be correct. Jones chose to say it was up because that conforms with his paradigm. However he could just as easily said it was down and been just as correct. Are you so blind you can't see that?

BULLSHIT!

Again, when CON$ are caught lying, rather than admit the truth they just keep on lying, making up crap as necessary in the process, like saying .12 was within the margin of error and would be just as accurate as -.12.
PURE BULLSHIT!

 

[westwall]

Again we see a typical CON$ervative tactic; when caught lying, play dumb and keep on lying!!!

Clearly the quote is saying the only thing keeping the POPSITIVE warming trend value from being 95% significant is just a LITTLE more time. The way the original CON$ervative liar edited the quote it appears to say there was no warming, and you know it!

No, you ignoramus. .12 is within the margin of error. You could it is up or down and be correct. Jones chose to say it was up because that conforms with his paradigm. However he could just as easily said it was down and been just as correct. Are you so blind you can't see that?

BULLSHIT!

Again, when CON$ are caught lying, rather than admit the truth they just keep on lying, making up crap as necessary in the process, like saying .12 was within the margin of error and would be just as accurate as -.12.
PURE BULLSHIT!

Instead of whining like a little kid I suggest you read a book on statistics and ask yourself why did Jones answer that question in the affirmative? BTW you're funny!

 

[edthecynic]

No, you ignoramus. .12 is within the margin of error. You could it is up or down and be correct. Jones chose to say it was up because that conforms with his paradigm. However he could just as easily said it was down and been just as correct. Are you so blind you can't see that?

BULLSHIT!

Again, when CON$ are caught lying, rather than admit the truth they just keep on lying, making up crap as necessary in the process, like saying .12 was within the margin of error and would be just as accurate as -.12.
PURE BULLSHIT!

Instead of whining like a little kid I suggest you read a book on statistics and ask yourself why did Jones answer that question in the affirmative? BTW you're funny!

He answered with a LOT MORE than just an affirmative, but you DISHONEST CON$ edited his answer. That reflects on YOU not him!!!!
BTW, you're dishonest!

 

[westwall]

BULLSHIT!

Again, when CON$ are caught lying, rather than admit the truth they just keep on lying, making up crap as necessary in the process, like saying .12 was within the margin of error and would be just as accurate as -.12.
PURE BULLSHIT!

Instead of whining like a little kid I suggest you read a book on statistics and ask yourself why did Jones answer that question in the affirmative? BTW you're funny!

He answered with a LOT MORE than just an affirmative, but you DISHONEST CON$ edited his answer. That reflects on YOU not him!!!!
BTW, you're dishonest!

No, I didn't edit it so for you to paint me with that broad stripe is disingenuous and false. If you want to rail at CF feel free but blast your vitriol at the proper target....or do you want to be recognised as what you claim to hate?

 

[Old Rocks]

Arguing with Old Rocks about "science" is like arguing with a squirrel about sports.

Neither of them will give you an intelligent response and both aren't aware of anything other than their own existence.

Yep, Old Rocks cheats like hell. He posts real articles from real scientists. What a crappy thing to do in a scientific arguement.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Arguing with Old Rocks about "science" is like arguing with a squirrel about sports.

Neither of them will give you an intelligent response and both aren't aware of anything other than their own existence.

Yep, Old Rocks cheats like hell. He posts real articles from real scientists. What a crappy thing to do in a scientific arguement.

Yes, numbers and data should be posted and not Politics. Get fucking Politics out of science. posting scientific papers and work from scientist is debating science. Period.

 

[edthecynic]

Instead of whining like a little kid I suggest you read a book on statistics and ask yourself why did Jones answer that question in the affirmative? BTW you're funny!

He answered with a LOT MORE than just an affirmative, but you DISHONEST CON$ edited his answer. That reflects on YOU not him!!!!
BTW, you're dishonest!

No, I didn't edit it so for you to paint me with that broad stripe is disingenuous and false. If you want to rail at CF feel free but blast your vitriol at the proper target....or do you want to be recognised as what you claim to hate?

I did blast CF and then you chimed in defending his editing. Pretending you and CF are not on the same page is disingenuous and false.

 

[Mini 14]

Arguing with Old Rocks about "science" is like arguing with a squirrel about sports.

Neither of them will give you an intelligent response and both aren't aware of anything other than their own existence.

Yep, Old Rocks cheats like hell. He posts real articles from real scientists. What a crappy thing to do in a scientific arguement.

Yes, numbers and data should be posted and not Politics. Get fucking Politics out of science. posting scientific papers and work from scientist is debating science. Period.

Alright Matthew and Old Rocks.....here is your chance to show your acumen for science:

What is the statistical probability of a reliable (statistically defined) relationship when you are given 0.000000025 of the available data from an unknown set of variables and charged with determining a cause or effect?

Because that is EXACTLY what you're arguing.

The bottom line is, you don't know shit. None of us know shit. As much as you want to understand the Earth, you never will. The Earth will never even know you were here, no matter how smart you think you are, how many posts you make, or what your rep count is.

Numbers don't lie.

People do. Especially when they're trying to impress OTHER PEOPLE.

So.....

0.000000025 of subset (z) = what?

Until you define subset (z), you're waxing philosophic. And you CAN'T define subset (z). Not with all the Science you've ever heard of.

And once you do, that 0.000000025 needs to grow to something that is statistically reliable.

Which will only take about another 4,500,000,000 years.

You two define "Science" to fit your concept of yourselves and your current environment, neither of which are measurable or controlled.

And that violates the very first rule of ALL Sciences.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, Old Rocks cheats like hell. He posts real articles from real scientists. What a crappy thing to do in a scientific arguement.

Yes, numbers and data should be posted and not Politics. Get fucking Politics out of science. posting scientific papers and work from scientist is debating science. Period.

Alright Matthew and Old Rocks.....here is your chance to show your acumen for science:

What is the statistical probability of a reliable (statistically defined) relationship when you are given 0.000000025 of the available data from an unknown set of variables and charged with determining a cause or effect?

Because that is EXACTLY what you're arguing.

The bottom line is, you don't know shit. None of us know shit. As much as you want to understand the Earth, you never will. The Earth will never even know you were here, no matter how smart you think you are, how many posts you make, or what your rep count is.

Numbers don't lie.

People do. Especially when they're trying to impress OTHER PEOPLE.

So.....

0.000000025 of subset (z) = what?

Until you define subset (z), you're waxing philosophic. And you CAN'T define subset (z). Not with all the Science you've ever heard of.

And once you do, that 0.000000025 needs to grow to something that is statistically reliable.

Which will only take about another 4,500,000,000 years.

You two define "Science" to fit your concept of yourselves and your current environment, neither of which are measurable or controlled.

And that violates the very first rule of ALL Sciences.

Meaningless yap-yap with a lot of numbers thrown in. You simply don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4

How about some real science? All you fellows present is the garbabe from Youtube and sites created by people without the slightest background in real science.

 

[Mini 14]

Yes, numbers and data should be posted and not Politics. Get fucking Politics out of science. posting scientific papers and work from scientist is debating science. Period.

Alright Matthew and Old Rocks.....here is your chance to show your acumen for science:

What is the statistical probability of a reliable (statistically defined) relationship when you are given 0.000000025 of the available data from an unknown set of variables and charged with determining a cause or effect?

Because that is EXACTLY what you're arguing.

The bottom line is, you don't know shit. None of us know shit. As much as you want to understand the Earth, you never will. The Earth will never even know you were here, no matter how smart you think you are, how many posts you make, or what your rep count is.

Numbers don't lie.

People do. Especially when they're trying to impress OTHER PEOPLE.

So.....

0.000000025 of subset (z) = what?

Until you define subset (z), you're waxing philosophic. And you CAN'T define subset (z). Not with all the Science you've ever heard of.

And once you do, that 0.000000025 needs to grow to something that is statistically reliable.

Which will only take about another 4,500,000,000 years.

You two define "Science" to fit your concept of yourselves and your current environment, neither of which are measurable or controlled.

And that violates the very first rule of ALL Sciences.

Meaningless yap-yap with a lot of numbers thrown in. You simply don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

Uhmm.......that's science. All numbers........Are you saying statistics are not science?

Its about as simple a statistics problem as you're ever going to see.

So what's the answer, Einstein?

Are you faithful enough to Science to provide the answer?

Or are you simply using Science to make a political point?

Because the answer is the answer......your political view will not change the answer. You're either a Scientist, and find the answer....or you're a political philosopher, and want to ignore the answer in case it doesn't support your argument.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

 

[Old Rocks]

USGS Fact Sheet 2009?3046: Fifty-Year Record of Glacier Change Reveals Shifting Climate in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, USA