Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I will eventually, but I want to needle Dupe first.Why don't you post a link to it?In reality he said something completely different, like 15 years is not a long enough of a period to be statically significant in science. Close but not quite long enough. He actually said the trend from 1995 to 2009, the 15 years in question, was a positive 0.12C per decade.
You know that's what he actually said which is why you won't post the actual quote even now, especially now!
Doubtful.I will eventually
I have posted no sources. However I have the original transcript of the interview right here in front of me, because unlike you sycophants, I actually read up on what I'm talking about instead of regurgitating the spoon fed talking point.But a better question is, after your sources
I have the transcript in front of me, too....I'm taking nothing out of context.I said you would not post the whole quote in context, and true to form you didn't. CON$ are soooooooo predictable!I'll score you as a big "NO" for that pride and dignity thingy.
Post the interview and prove me wrong. You won't because you know you are lying, making you a PREMEDITATED liar.
I will eventually, but I want to needle Dupe first.Why don't you post a link to it?In reality he said something completely different, like 15 years is not a long enough of a period to be statically significant in science. Close but not quite long enough. He actually said the trend from 1995 to 2009, the 15 years in question, was a positive 0.12C per decade.
You know that's what he actually said which is why you won't post the actual quote even now, especially now!
But a better question is, after your sources have been shown so many times to have never quoted anyone accurately, why do you suckers STILL fall for their made up quotes and never check them for yourselves before you stupidly parrot them in a public forum?
CON$ never learn from their stupid mistakes.
If you actually did you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself by challenged me for a link. You would have known that Jones said what I posted and didn't "roll" at all. You would know he said he was 100% certain we have been warming and the warming was mostly due to man.Doubtful.I will eventually
I have posted no sources. However I have the original transcript of the interview right here in front of me, because unlike you sycophants, I actually read up on what I'm talking about instead of regurgitating the spoon fed talking point.But a better question is, after your sources
So why don't you post the "but" for all to see. What have YOU got to hide????I have the transcript in front of me, too....I'm taking nothing out of context.I said you would not post the whole quote in context, and true to form you didn't. CON$ are soooooooo predictable!I'll score you as a big "NO" for that pride and dignity thingy.
Post the interview and prove me wrong. You won't because you know you are lying, making you a PREMEDITATED liar.
It's a "yeahbbut" piece for the ages.
Oh come on now Dupe, who do you think you are fooling?Yeah....He's 100% sure of it, even though he admits the current warming period is in no way historically exceptional and that there has been no significant warming since 1995, while modern industrial activity has marched on.
yeahbbut, yeahbbut, yeahbbut.......
Yeah.... he admits there has been no significant warming since 1995, while modern industrial activity has marched on.
In reality he said something completely different, like 15 years is not a long enough of a period to be statically significant in science. Close but not quite long enough. He actually said the trend from 1995 to 2009, the 15 years in question, was a positive 0.12C per decade.
You know you reveal your dishonesty by what you deliberately leave out. Why didn't you let Jones explain what HE says "statistically-significant" means which is what he was saying "yes" to.BBC: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”
Jones: “Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009...."
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Now, I suppose you're going to try and tell us that "yes" means "no".
So which one of us paraphrased him more accurately and honestly???" 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."
You're too stupid to realize that "yeahbut" answers ARE "rolling" and that you should expect much more than "yeahbut" from the scientific community.You would have known that Jones said what I posted and didn't "roll" at all.
Yes..... BUT?BBC: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”
Jones: “Yes, but..."
One more time because you pretend to be stupid to hide your premeditated lying.You're too stupid to realize that "yeahbut" answers ARE "rolling" and that you should expect much more than "yeahbut" from the scientific community.You would have known that Jones said what I posted and didn't "roll" at all.
One more time, because you're so obtuse and stupid:
Yes..... BUT?BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Jones: Yes, but..."
Yeahbut? This is his answer?
C'mon now....
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.
