Albert Einstein once said:
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.”
Show me exactly where and in which of your dumb posts you asked me this foolish question :
I am telling you over and over again that the statistical significance to back up the hypothesis that CO2 drives temperature is way out of line ,
Temperatures have been up and down INDEPENDENTLY of CO2 levels for millennia, thus the statistical significance was always outside the 5% limit ever since this quack "science" got off the ground
and even this fool Phil Jones knows it and had to admit that over and over again....after his assertions have been scrutinized by Mathematicians and almost the entire international News Media caught wind of it....Jones also pleaded the same ignorance as your`s of REAL math as a cop out to avoid fraud charges in the UK.
I`ll explain it to you one last time,...:
In the Null hypothesis which is the only scientifically accepted form a hypothesis is stipulated in REAL SCIENCE, that the failure to be within the acceptable statistical significance limit means that any synchronicity between temperature change and CO2 change was a random event
To make a valid claim any REAL SCIENTIST must first show, that the statistical significance is showing that there is only a 5% CHANCE that temperature can go up independently from CO2 .
If You can`t do it, then in Mathematics that means that if at any one time the temp went up the same time as the CO2 did, that it was a random event....
or a coincidence, a freak event... or whatever simpler words you and the likes of you uneducated loudmouths-moron liberals here prefer
How the fuck can anyone be so stupid not to understand that?
Do us all a favor and try this out...:
Get a .38 Smith&Wesson and load every chamber except one and see how many times You can play "Russian Roulette"..
You have a 1 in 6 Chance to survive = expressed as 16.6% statistical significance
Now go ahead and satisfy a HARD SCIENCE NULL HYPOTHESIS that pulling a trigger on a 5/6 th loaded firearm results in death..
and You must do it often enough till you can satisfy the 5% statistical significance rule showing that the gun just went "click" instead of "bang"
was sheer luck that only happens 5% of the time...
so unless you can persuade some more liberal anti-gun crack heads to volunteer for your statistical study, don`t start out putting the gun to the pin-head on the upper end of your food to shit and piss conversion worm, start out with the head on the other end where all the other piss and shit emanating from you comes out...in case the non-random event , meaning the gun does go off happens before you established the 5% statistical significance
Then we`ll write your obituary and mention you have stated a statistically valid null hypothesis that shows that someone not playing with a full deck (like you) and a gun + some ammo will get killed, and that you have left behind data that backs up this hypothesis with a statistical significance of 5%
So, where exactly did I not answer the question you never asked to begin with...using your pinhead jibberish...:
Like your "counter argument" against Westwall :
"due to a slight lack of TIME to show,... using scientifically sound statistical methods,.. that +0.12 C has anything to do with CO2
and the "too short time" Phil Jones is referring to, and got caught cheating, was the "too short time" to qualify for an acceptable level of statistical significance has been dubbed 'The Hockey Stick"...
But this quack science went on using it to fabricate a fraudulent hypothesis, a fraud which he and all those associated with him perpetrated on the public at large...
And it was indeed a freak coincidence that the entire lot did not wind up behind bars after the British Parliament pondered laying criminal fraud charges against him + his organization...
By the way this is far from over...they have not stopped at the international crimes commission in Brussels accumulating enough evidence to make it stick the next time..
Phil Jones is well aware of that, that`s why he keeps answering pointed questions nailing his pudding to the wall with a "noyeah"....
This "slightly too short time" is called "The Hockey Stick" ...by the entire world, with the few freak exceptions of some fringe lunatics like you, Thudhead and rock-head
Don`t believe me...?...let`s see what happens if you enter @ Google "the hockey stick"...:
the hockey stick - Google Search
Or maybe deep down in your shit gut you have that nagging feeling that you and morons just like you are the freak event...
Using these Google hit results up in that link there nobody would have any trouble at all proving with a statistical significance error margin of less than 0.00001 % that You and your "global warming" asshole quack "science" are the freak/random event of the millennium
What`s that supposed to be anyway...is that a web cam shot of your freak cyclops pin-head ?
Hey I have to copy & paste this post here into "Open Office" for a quick and lazy word count, then e-mail it it for my $.25 per word hobby income, ....a few more posts like this one and I can buy that nice Mig-welder I was eying in town today
But maybe I`ll look around here some more first,,,...see what more moron stuff has been posted in these "Enviro" threads here...
But it`s been good hunting in this here thread so far and it`s been easier than making road kill out of toads
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.”
You are projecting because you couldn't answer the simple question!!!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
If an event is not random does it not have a cause?
Show me exactly where and in which of your dumb posts you asked me this foolish question :
that you say I could not answerIf an event is not random does it not have a cause?
I am telling you over and over again that the statistical significance to back up the hypothesis that CO2 drives temperature is way out of line ,
Temperatures have been up and down INDEPENDENTLY of CO2 levels for millennia, thus the statistical significance was always outside the 5% limit ever since this quack "science" got off the ground
and even this fool Phil Jones knows it and had to admit that over and over again....after his assertions have been scrutinized by Mathematicians and almost the entire international News Media caught wind of it....Jones also pleaded the same ignorance as your`s of REAL math as a cop out to avoid fraud charges in the UK.
I`ll explain it to you one last time,...:
In the Null hypothesis which is the only scientifically accepted form a hypothesis is stipulated in REAL SCIENCE, that the failure to be within the acceptable statistical significance limit means that any synchronicity between temperature change and CO2 change was a random event
To make a valid claim any REAL SCIENTIST must first show, that the statistical significance is showing that there is only a 5% CHANCE that temperature can go up independently from CO2 .
If You can`t do it, then in Mathematics that means that if at any one time the temp went up the same time as the CO2 did, that it was a random event....
or a coincidence, a freak event... or whatever simpler words you and the likes of you uneducated loudmouths-moron liberals here prefer
How the fuck can anyone be so stupid not to understand that?
It still didn`t penetrate into your little dense head...by the way which of your 2 heads does your "thinking"...? The one on your neck or the other one in your pants?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...blah blah blah
If an event is not random does it not have a cause?
Do us all a favor and try this out...:
Get a .38 Smith&Wesson and load every chamber except one and see how many times You can play "Russian Roulette"..
You have a 1 in 6 Chance to survive = expressed as 16.6% statistical significance
Now go ahead and satisfy a HARD SCIENCE NULL HYPOTHESIS that pulling a trigger on a 5/6 th loaded firearm results in death..
and You must do it often enough till you can satisfy the 5% statistical significance rule showing that the gun just went "click" instead of "bang"
was sheer luck that only happens 5% of the time...
so unless you can persuade some more liberal anti-gun crack heads to volunteer for your statistical study, don`t start out putting the gun to the pin-head on the upper end of your food to shit and piss conversion worm, start out with the head on the other end where all the other piss and shit emanating from you comes out...in case the non-random event , meaning the gun does go off happens before you established the 5% statistical significance
Then we`ll write your obituary and mention you have stated a statistically valid null hypothesis that shows that someone not playing with a full deck (like you) and a gun + some ammo will get killed, and that you have left behind data that backs up this hypothesis with a statistical significance of 5%
So, where exactly did I not answer the question you never asked to begin with...using your pinhead jibberish...:
As if I had nothing better to do than sit there all day long reading the kind of retard crap You and your moron friends are writing in this forum hereYou are projecting because you couldn't answer the simple question!!!
If an event is not random does it not have a cause?
Like your "counter argument" against Westwall :
Well that`s exactly the problem with this quack science isn`t it you pin-head...: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.
"due to a slight lack of TIME to show,... using scientifically sound statistical methods,.. that +0.12 C has anything to do with CO2
and the "too short time" Phil Jones is referring to, and got caught cheating, was the "too short time" to qualify for an acceptable level of statistical significance has been dubbed 'The Hockey Stick"...
But this quack science went on using it to fabricate a fraudulent hypothesis, a fraud which he and all those associated with him perpetrated on the public at large...
And it was indeed a freak coincidence that the entire lot did not wind up behind bars after the British Parliament pondered laying criminal fraud charges against him + his organization...
By the way this is far from over...they have not stopped at the international crimes commission in Brussels accumulating enough evidence to make it stick the next time..
Phil Jones is well aware of that, that`s why he keeps answering pointed questions nailing his pudding to the wall with a "noyeah"....
This "slightly too short time" is called "The Hockey Stick" ...by the entire world, with the few freak exceptions of some fringe lunatics like you, Thudhead and rock-head
Don`t believe me...?...let`s see what happens if you enter @ Google "the hockey stick"...:
the hockey stick - Google Search
go ahead and click on that Google search result link...About 7,510,000 results (0.15 seconds)
Or maybe deep down in your shit gut you have that nagging feeling that you and morons just like you are the freak event...
Using these Google hit results up in that link there nobody would have any trouble at all proving with a statistical significance error margin of less than 0.00001 % that You and your "global warming" asshole quack "science" are the freak/random event of the millennium
What`s that supposed to be anyway...is that a web cam shot of your freak cyclops pin-head ?
Hey I have to copy & paste this post here into "Open Office" for a quick and lazy word count, then e-mail it it for my $.25 per word hobby income, ....a few more posts like this one and I can buy that nice Mig-welder I was eying in town today
But maybe I`ll look around here some more first,,,...see what more moron stuff has been posted in these "Enviro" threads here...
But it`s been good hunting in this here thread so far and it`s been easier than making road kill out of toads
Last edited: