Is the correlation between CO2 and temperature based on negligent misinterpretation ?

[mamooth]

Panic in the hen house ?

Indeed. You're clearly soiling yourself now. I can smell it across the internet. So, let's do what annoys you most, and return to what you keep trying to run from.

Why did you copy something from WUWT, and fail to say that's where you took it from?

Why, after the dishonest statistics of Anthony Watts was shredded, did you try to deflect from that by making up some irrelevant crap about sigmoids.?

After we called you out on that dishonesty, why are you now trying to deflect by tossing insults? Telling, how you won't even try to defend your 'statistics'. Even you seem aware of how lacking your statistical knowledge is.

So, nice fail of a thread. Some of us read WUWT, and are well aware of the many different methods they've used in their attempts to lie with statistics. Hence, if you copy those dishonest methods, you're going to get busted for lying-with-statistics, like you were here.

 

[polarbear]

You mean that ?

John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.
That "experiment" as he called it, after he got caught posing as a theoretical physicist sure did a number on you and your "likers"...ooops I meant lickers.
His "experiment" is supposed to work like this:
people feel uncomfortable with an incomplete model. They want to feel as if they know what’s going on. So if you create a gap, you need to fill the gap with an alternative fact.
For example, it’s not enough to just provide evidence that a suspect in a murder trial is innocent. To prove them innocent – at least in people’s minds – you need to provide an alternative suspect.
Obviously the cartoonist posing as a physicist succeeded to fill your gaps with "alternative facts" and since then you feel as if you know what`s going on.

 

[Crick]

You really are ignorant of statistics... who would of thunk it... Break points are used to get coefficients and PRECISION...

Let's see a quote from a statistics textbook that would justify what he did. For that matter, why don't you attempt to explain what you just said. What coefficients and what precision?

 

[Crick]

The relationship between temperature and CO2 over the last XX years is not a sigmoid function. The only thing accomplished by putting those breakpoints in there is to cherry pick the data. Breaking doesn't do anything to give us so-far-unidentified "coefficients" and doesn't increase precision. Given that you're reducing the size of your dataset, the latter is quite a load. This thread is a fail. The correlation is real. The only misinterpretation here is the intentional one into which you've followed the dependable Mr Watts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The relationship between temperature and CO2 over the last XX years is not a sigmoid function. The only thing accomplished by putting those breakpoints in there is to cherry pick the data. Breaking doesn't do anything to give us so-far-unidentified "coefficients" and doesn't increase precision. Given that you're reducing the size of your dataset, the latter is quite a load. This thread is a fail. The correlation is real. The only misinterpretation here is the intentional one into which you've followed the dependable Mr Watts.

You've been shown by others.. I am not going to waste my time with your stupid ass..

 

[Crick]

The relationship between temperature and CO2 over the last XX years is not a sigmoid function. The only thing accomplished by putting those breakpoints in there is to cherry pick the data. Breaking doesn't do anything to give us so-far-unidentified "coefficients" and doesn't increase precision. Given that you're reducing the size of your dataset, the latter is quite a load. This thread is a fail. The correlation is real. The only misinterpretation here is the intentional one into which you've followed the dependable Mr Watts.

You've been shown by others.. I am not going to waste my time with your stupid ass..

Coward. Do you actually think anyone here is fooled by "I'm not going to waste my time".

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app