Statisticians reject global cooling

[Yanksfan396]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750...s-environment/

[drtom2005]

Love these quotes.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.
Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

[Yanksfan396]

I know. It's funny, really: after reading the article, it sounds like the same stuff drtom's been saying repeatedly, until he was red in the face and being mocked for.

[drtom2005]

I know. It's funny, really: after reading the article, it sounds like the same stuff drtom's been saying repeatedly, until he was red in the face and being mocked for.

This one is for you OPT.

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

Let me guess when your article starts its analysis OPT. OPT when real scientists say something and attach their name to it, it becomes more definitive.

[OnePimpTiger]

This one is for you OPT.

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

Let me guess when your article starts its analysis OPT. OPT when real scientists say something and attach their name to it, it becomes more definitive.

Of course, because statisticians are more knowledgeable about global warming or cooling than geologists. Care to explain how these scientists are more "real" than any others?

By the way, I don't see a link to the actual study and analysis, how could you have used your infallible ability to evaluate information to determine if this is a valid conclusion or not? Oh that's right, because it affirms your world view you automatically accept it as correct. You should know presenting MSNBC as evidence is about the equivalent of Newsbusters. It's funny how you apply one set of standards to information presented to you from an opposing opinion and another set for information that affirms your world view. There's a word for that, you should be familiar with it, you sure do use it a lot...

And another by the way, I've never said in any way that I believe we're experiencing global cooling, not sure why you even bothered to point this out to me?

And I find it pretty funny how you still think I'm trying to disprove "global warming"...you catch on real slow for such a smart guy.

[drtom2005]

Of course, because statisticians are more knowledgeable about global warming or cooling than geologists. Care to explain how these scientists are more "real" than any others?

By the way, I don't see a link to the actual study and analysis, how could you have used your infallible ability to evaluate information to determine if this is a valid conclusion or not? Oh that's right, because it affirms your world view you automatically accept it as correct. You should know presenting MSNBC as evidence is about the equivalent of Newsbusters. It's funny how you apply one set of standards to information presented to you from an opposing opinion and another set for information that affirms your world view. There's a word for that, you should be familiar with it, you sure do use it a lot...

And another by the way, I've never said in any way that I believe we're experiencing global cooling, not sure why you even bothered to point this out to me?

And I find it pretty funny how you still think I'm trying to disprove "global warming"...you catch on real slow for such a smart guy.

LOL. The scientist analyzed data in their field. By the way, you never answer my question fully.

The global cooling was for Mike and you. You gave me an article
that likely is analyzing data from 1998 onward. Once again, I wanted you to look to the information you were giving. The stuff you provided was attempting to say the earth was cooling. Maybe you were not smart enough to know what you were saying/implying. I know you like backtracking.

You are open to everyone's opinion though. You can not make decisions apparently. Your standard, not mine.

Oh I love that you can not think of an argument for yourself. You have to use the one I was using against the "supposed" scientists you were quoting.

[ensbergcollector]

so, anyone using 1998 as a starting point is wrong. so, who gets to decide what is a fair starting date? if you use one, you can argue for warming, if you use another you can argue for cooling. man, seems like there is a lot of uncertainty out there!

[Aikman_TheGreat]

Hey, I'll buy a hybrid when a hybrid truck can haul 11,000lbs+. Until then I cant buy a hybrid. I'm sorry. So I'm guessing I'm the main reason golbal warming is around (trucks/SUV's).

Not the first time I've said this on this board, thats why I sadi it again.

[Aikman_TheGreat]

Oh, and by the way, you're welcome for all the natural gas and oil you have. All the work I put in, and all the stress I have, is for you. You're welcome.

[Titantron]

so. It doesnt prove anything. It just shows that people can manipulate numbers to match their ideology. I dont see Global Warming skeptics attempting to enact massive legislation with serious financial consequences. It basicly helps to show that Global Warming "studies" are BS. Why is the AP attempting to refute Global Cooling studies? I dont recall them attempting to refute any Global Warming studies. I also love the random picture that has nothing to do with the story. Well. Its not really random. Its purpose is to show you melting ice and help to further sway your opinion. Global warming = Liberal/Left, Liberal/Left = Media. Because of that, We will never know the absolute Truth on this subject.