Climate models go cold

[polarbear]

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

Phil Jones: Yes..."

I've lost track of how many times I've caught CF posting this deliberate deception on other threads and this is the second time in this thread. But it does serve to show the complete dishonesty of CONS, so thank you CF.

First of all, CF gives no link because he knows that if you see the whole quote you will see his obvious attempt at deception by taking the much less than half quote completely out of context. The context of the quote was not that there was no global warming during the period, but that the time period was just a tiny bit too short for the MEASURED WARMING of +.12C to be "statistically-significant!" So the warming was statistically-significant but the time period wasn't!!!!!

Of course, this exposing your premeditated lie will not stop you from posting the same lie again in this thread or in another thread, after all, you ARE a CON$ervative.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

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

Phil Jones: 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.

Look at the quote below edtheblind........that part highlighted in blue....what exactly does that mean in five words or less?

"Phil Jones: 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."

It never fails, when You want a good laugh, this is the right place to come to...
edtheblind.

The context of the quote was not that there was no global warming during the period, but that the time period was just a tiny bit too short for the MEASURED WARMING of +.12C to be "statistically-significant!" So the warming was statistically-significant but the time period wasn't!!!!!

That`s almost as funny as had he claimed he can push cars in reverse and reclaim Oxygen and fuel because climatology cars then suck in "Greenhouse Gas" up their tail pipe and reverse the combustion process.

I wonder if it finally dawned on him after You highlighted "Yes"....he agreed that there was no global warming since 1995,,

After I read this quote...
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

And had an even better laugh...Phil Jones...:

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.

Passing himself off as a mathematician....and shooting his foot clean off in the process.
He actually said:
"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."
So the significant level was not at the 95% significance level, but close to it..
Does anyone here know how a "significance level" is defined in Math...?
Well it works like this...:
If there is only 1 chance in 100 that something was a purely random event, a coincidence...then in math You express that as a significance level of a 1 % chance that is was coincidence
But this Climatology idiot said that the .12 C "Global" warming was close to a 95 % "significance level"...
Or the way REAL MATH defines "significance level" , that there is a close to 95 % chance that this +0.12+ was by chance, a random event...

Statistical significance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance. The phrase test of significance was coined by Ronald Fisher.[1] As used in statistics, significant does not mean important or meaningful, as it does in everyday speech.
For example, if someone argues that "there's only one chance in a thousand this could have happened by coincidence," a 0.001 level of statistical significance is being implied. The lower the significance level, the stronger the evidence required. Choosing level of significance is an arbitrary task, but for many applications, a level of 5% is chosen, for no better reason than that it is conventional

"climatology" -Quackologists love to parrot real science yet no have fucking clue about Math Physics or Chemistry...and neither do the liberal morons who believe this crap...


Did You take a look at the gifs Phil Jones quoted in that interview...?
Look at the red cluster fuck of climatology-thermometers in the south..and only ~a dozen data points for the entire arctic

There was an ~18 % increase in black pavement and urban sprawl
http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm

World Population Growth

1995 5.7 billion
2011 7 billion

where all their "stations" are and they "measured' this:

Look at this data garbage...that would never measure up anywhere else but in "climatology"...
The absolute variance is more 10 times (!!!!!) of the " +0.12 global warming trend" they scream about...
Best data set scatter graph to show that a Null Hypothesis clearly applies for "global warming"....and here we have it, courtesy of "climate science"...and I bet You the raw data looked way worse, before they laundered it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

 

[RollingThunder]

I've lost track of how many times I've caught CF posting this deliberate deception on other threads and this is the second time in this thread. But it does serve to show the complete dishonesty of CONS, so thank you CF.

First of all, CF gives no link because he knows that if you see the whole quote you will see his obvious attempt at deception by taking the much less than half quote completely out of context. The context of the quote was not that there was no global warming during the period, but that the time period was just a tiny bit too short for the MEASURED WARMING of +.12C to be "statistically-significant!" So the warming was statistically-significant but the time period wasn't!!!!!

Of course, this exposing your premeditated lie will not stop you from posting the same lie again in this thread or in another thread, after all, you ARE a CON$ervative.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

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

Phil Jones: 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.

Look at the quote below edtheblind........that part highlighted in blue....what exactly does that mean in five words or less?

"Phil Jones: 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."

It never fails, when You want a good laugh, this is the right place to come to...
edtheblind.
That`s almost as funny as had he claimed he can push cars in reverse and reclaim Oxygen and fuel because climatology cars then suck in "Greenhouse Gas" up their tail pipe and reverse the combustion process.

I wonder if it finally dawned on him after You highlighted "Yes"....he agreed that there was no global warming since 1995,,

After I read this quote...
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

And had an even better laugh...Phil Jones...:
Passing himself off as a mathematician....and shooting his foot clean off in the process.
He actually said:
"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."
So the significant level was not at the 95% significance level, but close to it..
Does anyone here know how a "significance level" is defined in Math...?
Well it works like this...:
If there is only 1 chance in 100 that something was a purely random event, a coincidence...then in math You express that as a significance level of a 1 % chance that is was coincidence
But this Climatology idiot said that the .12 C "Global" warming was close to a 95 % "significance level"...
Or the way REAL MATH defines "significance level" , that there is a close to 95 % chance that this +0.12+ was by chance, a random event...

Statistical significance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance. The phrase test of significance was coined by Ronald Fisher.[1] As used in statistics, significant does not mean important or meaningful, as it does in everyday speech.
For example, if someone argues that "there's only one chance in a thousand this could have happened by coincidence," a 0.001 level of statistical significance is being implied. The lower the significance level, the stronger the evidence required. Choosing level of significance is an arbitrary task, but for many applications, a level of 5% is chosen, for no better reason than that it is conventional

"climatology" -Quackologists love to parrot real science yet no have fucking clue about Math Physics or Chemistry...and neither do the liberal morons who believe this crap...

Oh, PeanutBrain, you are such a clueless idiot with such ridiculous pretensions. You have no idea what you're talking about. You've got this point completely reversed.

Significance in Statistics & Surveys
(excerpts)

Significance levels show you how likely a result is due to chance. The most common level, used to mean something is good enough to be believed, is .95. This means that the finding has a 95% chance of being true. However, this value is also used in a misleading way. No statistical package will show you "95%" or ".95" to indicate this level. Instead it will show you ".05," meaning that the finding has a five percent (.05) chance of not being true, which is the converse of a 95% chance of being true. To find the significance level, subtract the number shown from one. For example, a value of ".01" means that there is a 99% (1-.01=.99) chance of it being true. In this table, there is probably no difference in purchases of gasoline X by people in the city center and the suburbs, because the probability is .795 (i.e., there is only a 20.5% chance that the difference is true). In contrast the high significance level for type of vehicle (.001 or 99.9%) indicates there is almost certainly a true difference in purchases of Brand X by owners of different vehicles in the population from which the sample was drawn.

The Survey System uses significance levels with several statistics. In all cases, the p value tells you how likely something is to be not true. If a chi square test shows probability of .04, it means that there is a 96% (1-.04=.96) chance that the answers given by different groups in a banner really are different. If a t-test reports a probability of .07, it means that there is a 93% chance that the two means being compared would be truly different if you looked at the entire population.

People sometimes think that the 95% level is sacred when looking at significance levels. If a test shows a .06 probability, it means that it has a 94% chance of being true. You can't be quite as sure about it as if it had a 95% chance of being be true, but the odds still are that it is true. The 95% level comes from academic publications, where a theory usually has to have at least a 95% chance of being true to be considered worth telling people about. In the business world if something has a 90% chance of being true (probability =.1), it can't be considered proven, but it is probably better to act as if it were true rather than false.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If CO2 did what the Warmers claimed it did, they would be able to point to repeatable laboratory experiments showing how this happens. Instead they show us that: a) CO2 is a GHG and b) if you add 400,000PPM you might get a bump in temperature. Neither of which is in dispute.

They have not once showed how you accomplish a temperature rise with a 200PPM increase (they claim the Warming is a result of a 60PPM increase) Further they like to use a baseline of 1850, a time when at best, the measurements were made in parts per 10,000, 2 whole orders of magnitude less accurate than today.

Finally, what they do is not science. They have not eliminated all the variables except for the increase in the deminimus trace element CO2. When pressed as to why they cannot reproduce their hypothesis in a laboratory setting, they counter that the weather system is too complex to model in a lab. Which is it? Have you eliminated all the variables except for an increase in CO2 or is the system too complex? It can't be both.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ed, try it like this

"Prosecutor: Did you murder Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman?

OJ: Yes, but only just..."

See how that works? Do you see what's important in that exchange?

 

[edthecynic]

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

Phil Jones: Yes..."

I've lost track of how many times I've caught CF posting this deliberate deception on other threads and this is the second time in this thread. But it does serve to show the complete dishonesty of CONS, so thank you CF.

First of all, CF gives no link because he knows that if you see the whole quote you will see his obvious attempt at deception by taking the much less than half quote completely out of context. The context of the quote was not that there was no global warming during the period, but that the time period was just a tiny bit too short for the MEASURED WARMING of +.12C to be "statistically-significant!" So the warming was statistically-significant but the time period wasn't!!!!!

Of course, this exposing your premeditated lie will not stop you from posting the same lie again in this thread or in another thread, after all, you ARE a CON$ervative.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

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

Phil Jones: 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.

Look at the quote below edtheblind........that part highlighted in blue....what exactly does that mean in five words or less?

"Phil Jones: 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."

It means, "There has been global warming."

As if you didn't know!

 

[edthecynic]

I've lost track of how many times I've caught CF posting this deliberate deception on other threads and this is the second time in this thread. But it does serve to show the complete dishonesty of CONS, so thank you CF.

First of all, CF gives no link because he knows that if you see the whole quote you will see his obvious attempt at deception by taking the much less than half quote completely out of context. The context of the quote was not that there was no global warming during the period, but that the time period was just a tiny bit too short for the MEASURED WARMING of +.12C to be "statistically-significant!" So the warming was statistically-significant but the time period wasn't!!!!!

Of course, this exposing your premeditated lie will not stop you from posting the same lie again in this thread or in another thread, after all, you ARE a CON$ervative.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

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

Phil Jones: 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.

Look at the quote below edtheblind........that part highlighted in blue....what exactly does that mean in five words or less?

"Phil Jones: 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."

It never fails, when You want a good laugh, this is the right place to come to...
edtheblind.
That`s almost as funny as had he claimed he can push cars in reverse and reclaim Oxygen and fuel because climatology cars then suck in "Greenhouse Gas" up their tail pipe and reverse the combustion process.

I wonder if it finally dawned on him after You highlighted "Yes"....he agreed that there was no global warming since 1995,,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

It never fails, when You want a good laugh, this is the right place to come to...
polecat.

He did not agree that there was NO global warming since 1995, that's the whole point. The quote was edited to deceive the gullible like you into swallowing that crap. But you are the most gullible since you STILL swallowed the bullshit even after seeing the whole quote and the fact that the WARMING trend was POSITIVE since 1995!!!
SUCKER!
What a moron!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Of course, parking them damned satellites in airports is the normal thing to do, right, ol' Walleyes? Sheesh, the satellite records and the ground stations all say the same thing. April was the fifth to seventh warmest April on record.

No need to lie about it, old boy, just to easy to check.

Oh yes, you mean the satellites that were reading up to 15 degrees too warm? Those satellites? The ones that got NOAA sued for releasing faulty data? Those satellites? You have a very short memory don't you.

Right, so the real average temperate is 15 degrees less than it is, got it.

 

[polarbear]

The quote was edited to deceive the gullible like you into swallowing that crap. But you are the most gullible since you STILL swallowed the bullshit even after seeing the whole quote and the fact that the WARMING trend was POSITIVE since 1995!!!
SUCKER!
What a moron!

I even gave you a wiki-page reference link, where You could have read up what a 95% significance level means in REAL MATH...
And as expected You + your moron friends here simply can`t comprehend it..nor can this idiot Phil Jones who likes to brag using buzzwords like "statistical significance" without even having the slightest clue of the mathematical concept behind this terminology.
There was fuck all edited...he really is as stupid as the interview revealed.

A significance level of 5% means in REAL MATH that there was only a 5% Chance that the event was random.

While You + Your moron friends, including "scientist" Phil Jones assumed that a " 95% significance level" states a 95% confidence that event [A] causes an effect .

here it is again...:

Statistical significance

In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance
For example, if someone argues that "there's only one chance in a thousand this could have happened by coincidence," a 0.001 level of statistical significance is being implied

Ask Your mommie to explain it to You..

Every Math Book published in any language defines "significance level" the same way I do

slip-ups like this are a dead give-away that people like Phil Jones who try to impress others with science buzz words have absolutely no clue about the science behind the buzz-word...
There was fuck all edited in this interview, to make Phil Jones look stupid, he really is that stupid..
But you....even after showing it to you and re-explaining it you still don`t get it that a 95% [statistical significance] is not what un-educated people assume leaves You with a 100-95= 5% Chance that it was a coincidental timing when the temperature followed the CO2 concentration.

I clicked on this page before my ignore idiot list was set in the web browser and saw your other moron friend thundering fuckhead trying to lecture me in Math, that 100-95(Phil Jones significance)=a 5% significance level in "climate science math"

All of REAL SCIENCE uses the "Null Hypothesis",...
if You want to show that [A] might cause with a statistical correlation then you must produce a significance lever lower than 5% that the observed correlation was not just a coincidence...
And even after that, the correlation remains just a hypothesis and nothing more than that, till it can be proven with Physics or Chemistry that [A] causes at a delta(x) rate of change

"climate science" morons "prove" one hypothesis with yet another hypothesis over and over again and morons like you don`t even know the difference between confidence and statistical significance, yet call all other REAL SCIENTISTS who use Null Hypothesis "right wing biased" and all sorts of other choice names

I`m posting information for people who have a functioning brain, not for morons like you, thunder_farts_fuckhead and cement_rock heads etc who aren`t sure if they got the correct change at the McDonalds drive-through

 

[edthecynic]

The quote was edited to deceive the gullible like you into swallowing that crap. But you are the most gullible since you STILL swallowed the bullshit even after seeing the whole quote and the fact that the WARMING trend was POSITIVE since 1995!!!
SUCKER!
What a moron!

I even gave you a wiki-page reference link, where You could have read up what a 95% significance level means in REAL MATH...
And as expected You + your moron friends here simply can`t comprehend it..nor can this idiot Phil Jones who likes to brag using buzzwords like "statistical significance" without even having the slightest clue of the mathematical concept behind this terminology.
There was fuck all edited...he really is as stupid as the interview revealed.

A significance level of 5% means in REAL MATH that there was only a 5% Chance that the event was random.

While You + Your moron friends, including "scientist" Phil Jones assumed that a " 95% significance level" states a 95% confidence that event [A] causes an effect .

First of all, they were not talking about random events or cause and effect but the accuracy of the warming trend.

But even using your deflection, if an event has only a 5% chance of being RANDOM, would it not have a 95% chance of having a CAUSE????
What a pinhead!

 

[westwall]

I've lost track of how many times I've caught CF posting this deliberate deception on other threads and this is the second time in this thread. But it does serve to show the complete dishonesty of CONS, so thank you CF.

First of all, CF gives no link because he knows that if you see the whole quote you will see his obvious attempt at deception by taking the much less than half quote completely out of context. The context of the quote was not that there was no global warming during the period, but that the time period was just a tiny bit too short for the MEASURED WARMING of +.12C to be "statistically-significant!" So the warming was statistically-significant but the time period wasn't!!!!!

Of course, this exposing your premeditated lie will not stop you from posting the same lie again in this thread or in another thread, after all, you ARE a CON$ervative.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

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

Phil Jones: 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.

Look at the quote below edtheblind........that part highlighted in blue....what exactly does that mean in five words or less?

"Phil Jones: 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."

It means, "There has been global warming."

As if you didn't know!

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




You're the only fool I know that can make that interpretaion.

 

[polarbear]

The quote was edited to deceive the gullible like you into swallowing that crap. But you are the most gullible since you STILL swallowed the bullshit even after seeing the whole quote and the fact that the WARMING trend was POSITIVE since 1995!!!
SUCKER!
What a moron!

I even gave you a wiki-page reference link, where You could have read up what a 95% significance level means in REAL MATH...
And as expected You + your moron friends here simply can`t comprehend it..nor can this idiot Phil Jones who likes to brag using buzzwords like "statistical significance" without even having the slightest clue of the mathematical concept behind this terminology.
There was fuck all edited...he really is as stupid as the interview revealed.

A significance level of 5% means in REAL MATH that there was only a 5% Chance that the event was random.

While You + Your moron friends, including "scientist" Phil Jones assumed that a " 95% significance level" states a 95% confidence that event [A] causes an effect .

First of all, they were not talking about random events or cause and effect but the accuracy of the warming trend.

But even using your deflection, if an event has only a 5% chance of being RANDOM, would it not have a 95% chance of having a CAUSE????
What a pinhead!

Who is the pinhead here...??? You are an utter fucking retard..
If it can`t be shown with a statistical significance of <5% that there was indeed a +0.12 C temperature increase then You don`t even have a fucking trend to begin with...and this graph that your moron "scientist" quoted to the BBC clearly shows that too..
of course not to you or the other morons, that keep shooting their mouths off here ,because none of you has even the slightest clue about Math..:

To begin with neither you nor Phil Jones knew the difference between % confidence and % statistical significance, ...:
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

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.

.....so I`m quite certain You don`t know the difference between absolute deviation and a standard deviation either.
REAL SCIENCE uses neither, but plots event correlations as a Gaussian curve. Only fraud artists that want to make their hypothesis look credible use other methods to conceal the mass of data points that don`t suit the hypothesis` assertions.

First of all, they were not talking about random events or cause and effect but....blah blah blah...

So if your asshole climate "scientists" can`t even show that ANY INCREASE in temperature ever was caused by an increase of CO2 with a statistical significance of <5% ...as in cause and effect by CO2 to begin with..!!! then shut the fuck up and get some tutoring at a school for retards just like you, before You come back here to shoot off your fucking liberal loudmouth

Phil Jones and all these other fuckheads had to admit this more than once..not just to the BBC...but no harm was done because his qauck science following is even more retarded than he is

The British Parliament investigated if fraud charges should be laid against Phil Jones and others for this very reason ...
Mathematicians from Universities around the world noticed the statistical fraud "Climate science" perpetrated on the public here...
Phil Jones defense was then, that this was "an error in calculation" and not a deliberate fraud.
This plea for innocence was countered by Math experts from around the world, that "climatologists" used every data point, no matter how far off the average, just as long as it was on the + side and deliberately ignored EVERY SINGLE data point scattered on the - side as "unreliable"....the same as they did with contradictory tree ring data and historic Temperature data OUTSIDE THE TROPICAL REGIONS...

Just as soon as the British Parliament began investigating if this was just stupidity or deliberate fraud , Phil Jones and cronies decided to delete all the source data, so they say, when they were pressed for it and on which they based all their claims...
So they were off the hook, because for fraud charges to "stick" You need evidence it was willful and pre-meditated fraud, as opposed to stupidity and committing bombastic errors....as Jones and the rest of these Quacks stated in their plea for innocence....

and since then the only "source data" they claim they have kept, are these fraudulent graphs...and even on those almost the entire data point population is well outside the accepted limit for ANY REAL SCIENCE

If anyone else would try a stunt like that, say with the IRS they`ld be in jail just for refusing to show their records..!


Your "education level" can`t possibly be > grade 6 elementary school, just like your other equally retarded cronies here...
and in addition to that not a single one of you assholes ever read what`s been reported more than once by the international press like Reuter`s, etc etc etc...

By the way I do get paid for my writings, no matter where they are posted or appear...to be more exact it`s $ 0.25 per word..
while "OldRocks" spends his miserable life sitting day after day in front of his PC :

Now Chris, BiPolar will come back with a multi-page reply replete with cartoons, idiocies, and quotes from various whackos. See what you have done

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, Ore.
Posts: 15,417
=959 days at almost 17 posts every day in this here forum alone

As if anyone would pay morons like you or him for the retard texts you put in here...
eat your heart out, while I get paid for what I do, whenever I feel like it,
I can spend my extra money, maybe buying a vintage Caddy that gets at the most 1 mile per gallon just for the fun of making road kill out of liberal retards like you

 

[skookerasbil]

I gotta say............I love when Polar comes in here and schools the shit out of the k00k alarmists!!! Their responses are like spit balls on an M1 tank.

Or..........slingshot animals................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyFE-82FdmQ&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Flying Frog Slingshot from Stupid.com[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

Look at the quote below edtheblind........that part highlighted in blue....what exactly does that mean in five words or less?

"Phil Jones: 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."

It means, "There has been global warming."

As if you didn't know!

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



You're the only fool I know that can make that interpretaion.

And you're not the only CON$ervative fool who can't see that there was a .12C warming trend for that period no matter how big and colorful I make it. All you deniers are blind fools!

 

[westwall]

It means, "There has been global warming."

As if you didn't know!

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



You're the only fool I know that can make that interpretaion.

And you're not the only CON$ervative fool who can't see that there was a .12C warming trend for that period no matter how big and colorful I make it. All you deniers are blind fools!

Explain to us how agreeing with a "NO" means yes. I am all ears.

 

[edthecynic]

I even gave you a wiki-page reference link, where You could have read up what a 95% significance level means in REAL MATH...
And as expected You + your moron friends here simply can`t comprehend it..nor can this idiot Phil Jones who likes to brag using buzzwords like "statistical significance" without even having the slightest clue of the mathematical concept behind this terminology.
There was fuck all edited...he really is as stupid as the interview revealed.

A significance level of 5% means in REAL MATH that there was only a 5% Chance that the event was random.

While You + Your moron friends, including "scientist" Phil Jones assumed that a " 95% significance level" states a 95% confidence that event [A] causes an effect .

First of all, they were not talking about random events or cause and effect but the accuracy of the warming trend.

But even using your deflection, if an event has only a 5% chance of being RANDOM, would it not have a 95% chance of having a CAUSE????
What a pinhead!

Who is the pinhead here...??? You are an utter fucking retard.. Blah Blah Blah

You are projecting because you couldn't answer the simple question!!!
If an event is not random does it not have a cause?

 

[edthecynic]

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



You're the only fool I know that can make that interpretaion.

And you're not the only CON$ervative fool who can't see that there was a .12C warming trend for that period no matter how big and colorful I make it. All you deniers are blind fools!

Explain to us how agreeing with a "NO" means yes. I am all ears.

No you're not, you are all

As I have pointed out so many times before, when CON$ know they have been caught lying, they play dumb!
The no means no it is not statistically-significant, not that there was no global warming during the period, and you dishonest deniers know that is what it means or you would not have edited his answer the way you do!!!!!!!!
If his whole answer did not contradict your deliberate misrepresentation, you CON$ would not have edited his answer in the first place!!!!!!!!!! Your editing is the telltale giveaway that you CON$ know you are lying.
Thank you for the dumb act.

 

[skookerasbil]

It means, "There has been global warming."

As if you didn't know!

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



You're the only fool I know that can make that interpretaion.

And you're not the only CON$ervative fool who can't see that there was a .12C warming trend for that period no matter how big and colorful I make it. All you deniers are blind fools!

Who cares what we think?

What matters is what the people who make public policy think.

Ummm.......evidently, they arent too impressed with .12C!!!

 

[westwall]

And you're not the only CON$ervative fool who can't see that there was a .12C warming trend for that period no matter how big and colorful I make it. All you deniers are blind fools!

Explain to us how agreeing with a "NO" means yes. I am all ears.

No you're not, you are all

As I have pointed out so many times before, when CON$ know they have been caught lying, they play dumb!
The no means no it is not statistically-significant, not that there was no global warming during the period, and you dishonest deniers know that is what it means or you would not have edited his answer the way you do!!!!!!!!
If his whole answer did not contradict your deliberate misrepresentation, you CON$ would not have edited his answer in the first place!!!!!!!!!! Your editing is the telltale giveaway that you CON$ know you are lying.
Thank you for the dumb act.

Uhhhhhh, you still havn't explained how agreeing with a no means yes. On this planet english means pretty much if you agree with a no that means the answer is no. On your planet things may be different so please educate us how things are on your planet.


And, I edited nothing. I used the full quote you provided.

 

[edthecynic]

Explain to us how agreeing with a "NO" means yes. I am all ears.

No you're not, you are all

As I have pointed out so many times before, when CON$ know they have been caught lying, they play dumb!
The no means no it is not statistically-significant, not that there was no global warming during the period, and you dishonest deniers know that is what it means or you would not have edited his answer the way you do!!!!!!!!
If his whole answer did not contradict your deliberate misrepresentation, you CON$ would not have edited his answer in the first place!!!!!!!!!! Your editing is the telltale giveaway that you CON$ know you are lying.
Thank you for the dumb act.

Uhhhhhh, you still havn't explained how agreeing with a no means yes. On this planet english means pretty much if you agree with a no that means the answer is no. On your planet things may be different so please educate us how things are on your planet.


And, I edited nothing. I used the full quote you provided.

And when CON$ are caught playing too dumb to know they are lying, they just continue playing dumb and continue to lie.
Thank you again.

I already explained what "no" he was agreeing to, the part of Jones' answer you edited out.

You have yet to explain how a +.12C per decade warming trend means NO warming. The NO Jones was not agreeing to, that you CON$ dishonestly edited his answer to make it appear that he was agreeing to NO global warming rather than the NO statistical-significance due to a slight lack of TIME and not a lack of WARMING.

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

Phil Jones: 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]

No you're not, you are all

As I have pointed out so many times before, when CON$ know they have been caught lying, they play dumb!
The no means no it is not statistically-significant, not that there was no global warming during the period, and you dishonest deniers know that is what it means or you would not have edited his answer the way you do!!!!!!!!
If his whole answer did not contradict your deliberate misrepresentation, you CON$ would not have edited his answer in the first place!!!!!!!!!! Your editing is the telltale giveaway that you CON$ know you are lying.
Thank you for the dumb act.

Uhhhhhh, you still havn't explained how agreeing with a no means yes. On this planet english means pretty much if you agree with a no that means the answer is no. On your planet things may be different so please educate us how things are on your planet.


And, I edited nothing. I used the full quote you provided.

And when CON$ are caught playing too dumb to know they are lying, they just continue playing dumb and continue to lie.
Thank you again.

I already explained what "no" he was agreeing to, the part of Jones' answer you edited out.

You have yet to explain how a +.12C per decade warming trend means NO warming. The NO Jones was not agreeing to, that you CON$ dishonestly edited his answer to make it appear that he was agreeing to NO global warming rather than the NO statistical-significance due to a slight lack of TIME and not a lack of WARMING.

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

Phil Jones: 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'm going to edit for clarity now for others who like you can't comprehend the English Language......

BBC "Has there been any warming of significance?" Phil Jones "No, but only just."