Phil Jones Rolled...Game Over.

[edthecynic]

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!

Why don't you post a link to it?

I will eventually, but I want to needle Dupe first.

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.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I will eventually

Doubtful.

But a better question is, after your sources

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.

 

[Oddball]

I'll score you as a big "NO" for that pride and dignity thingy.

I said you would not post the whole quote in context, and true to form you didn't. CON$ are soooooooo predictable!

Post the interview and prove me wrong. You won't because you know you are lying, making you a PREMEDITATED liar.

I have the transcript in front of me, too....I'm taking nothing out of context.

It's a "yeahbbut" piece for the ages.

 

[edthecynic]

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!

Why don't you post a link to it?

I will eventually, but I want to needle Dupe first.

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.

I will eventually

Doubtful.

But a better question is, after your sources

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.

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.
Some rolling!

 

[edthecynic]

I'll score you as a big "NO" for that pride and dignity thingy.

I said you would not post the whole quote in context, and true to form you didn't. CON$ are soooooooo predictable!

Post the interview and prove me wrong. You won't because you know you are lying, making you a PREMEDITATED liar.

I have the transcript in front of me, too....I'm taking nothing out of context.

It's a "yeahbbut" piece for the ages.

So why don't you post the "but" for all to see. What have YOU got to hide????

 

[Oddball]

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.......

 

[edthecynic]

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.......

Oh come on now Dupe, who do you think you are fooling?

If he actually said that you would have posted the quote.
You didn't, just as I predicted!!!

That makes you a SHAMELESS premeditated liar.

 

[eagleseven]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsx2vdn7gpY&feature=related]YouTube - Game Over Man, GAME OVER! (HD)[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

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".

 

[edthecynic]

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.

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".

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.

" 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."

So which one of us paraphrased him more accurately and honestly???

 

[Oddball]

None of it is statistically significant, Gomer.

If it were hysterical fools like you wouldn't need to exaggerate about a mythical carbon doomsday.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You would have known that Jones said what I posted and didn't "roll" at all.

You're too stupid to realize that "yeahbut" answers ARE "rolling" and that you should expect much more than "yeahbut" from the scientific community.

One more time, because you're so obtuse and stupid:

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

Jones: “Yes, but..."

Yes..... BUT?

Yeahbut? This is his answer?

C'mon now....

 

[edthecynic]

You would have known that Jones said what I posted and didn't "roll" at all.

You're too stupid to realize that "yeahbut" answers ARE "rolling" and that you should expect much more than "yeahbut" from the scientific community.

One more time, because you're so obtuse and stupid:

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

Jones: “Yes, but..."

Yes..... BUT?

Yeahbut? This is his answer?

C'mon now....

One more time because you pretend to be stupid to hide your premeditated lying.

He said it was not statistically significant TIME WISE not temperature wise. He said the period was WARMING at a rate of .12 deg per decade, but the PERIOD OF TIME was just a little bit too short not the temp too low. That is why liars never complete his FULL answer.

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.