Skeptic wins global warming bet

[Quantum Windbag]

While most of my heat has been directed at what I consider bogus statistics and hysteria, we do need to remember that continually dumping more dirt into the air year after year does not constitute a good plan.

If we can chill about the global warming goofiness and concentrate on the reality that this is not good because we have to breathe this stuff, we can get further forward.

LOL. Baruch, you really need to read something real concerning global warming. The aerosols reflect energy back into space. In fact, the present 'dirty air' is the one negative forcing that is holding the heating of the atmosphere and surface in check. When we clean that up, as we, humanity, must, there will be a very rapid increase in atmospheric heating.

We did do something about it, and are doing more every year.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From 1998 to present, the running average has been, 75% of the time, above any high point prior to 1998. Yet you dingbats are claiming a cooling.

UAH global Temperature for December – no change | Watts Up With That?

Apparently you missed the OP of this thread. In order to win the bet all James Annon had to do was show a single temperature that was above the high point of 1998, he failed. Can you explain how the running average managed to be higher than the actual temperatures?

It is little things like that that make you look really stupid, and explains why no one pays any real attention to your post.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Daveman..........check out this link.................Ultra-harsh Alaska winter prompts fuel shortages: AP Alaska | Alaska news at adn.com


These people are dying for some global warming!!!

 

[frazzledgear]

Statistically insignificant does not mean there was no rise. It means that there is not enough increase to statistically support a conclusion with high confidence

No -that is NOT what is meant by "statistically insignificant". Your definition is just made up bullshit, sorry.

"Statistically insignificant" means nothing happened that was outside the status quo and norm. It means nothing of ANY significance happened and remains the status quo. Period.

Statistically insignificant does NOT mean that scientists merely lack a high confidence in what is a real change. That suggests the problem is with scientists and how they FEEL. But "statistically insignificant" is a scientific term that has very serious and VERY real scientific meaning that hasn't anything to do with how anyone FEELS or how confident or not confident scientists FEEL about something. It means NOTHING CHANGED and it remains the STATUS QUO.

It means there was no change because ALL of what was seen is entirely within the range of what is ALWAYS seen -meaning "NOTHING CHANGED". It does NOT mean "maybe it did change and scientists just need to buck up and feel more confident about it!" Statistically insignificant means NOTHING HAPPENED AT ALL that wasn't ENTIRELY within the expected norm and status quo of what is the NORM. It means nothing of ANY significance changed or happened at all! Period.