Statisticians reject global cooling

[ensbergcollector]

You apparently did not get the point of the article. The scientists who were blinded to what the information was about, stated that you can not make a trend on global temperatures with just ten years of data.

This is another example of thinking common sense applies to science. Is evoultion, germ theory, or the Big Bang common sense? No, they are not, but they have the evidence for their stated theories.

You can ignore it if you like.

another attempt to sound smart without actually answering or addressing my question. thanks man

[OnePimpTiger]

Denying the truth OPT and you have admitted you do not understand how to analzye articles. I do not tell you about the insurance industry which you have more knowledge about then me.

Backtracking once again I see.

Where is your evidence? You have already shown that you find faulty articles.

And I also like that you confuse confidence with arrogance. I know where the good scientific information points to. You do not. You have proven it.

Please call me arrogant again. I find it most humorous.

The Danth's Law thing was funny since you have never backed up anything you have claim with any good scientific evidence. I have won. You can continue to deny the truth but I am not surprised. You only look at evidence that supports your worldview. Projecting again as usual. Nothing new from you.

Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh this morning. But now I need to change my shirt...some of the massive amounts of irony dripping from this post got on it. Aww crap...I think some ego got on it too...that stuff doesn't come out apparently. Woops...there's some hypocricy too...and unrealized humiliation...man, you're getting my shirt all kinds of dirty!

[drtom2005]

another attempt to sound smart without actually answering or addressing my question. thanks man

I answered your question. You missed it apparently. The credible sources (blinded scientists) say that your claim was false. I am sorry it went over your head.

[drtom2005]

Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh this morning. But now I need to change my shirt...some of the massive amounts of irony dripping from this post got on it. Aww crap...I think some ego got on it too...that stuff doesn't come out apparently. Woops...there's some hypocricy too...and unrealized humiliation...man, you're getting my shirt all kinds of dirty!

You have no response as usual. Where is your information OPT?

Please answer my questions instead avoiding them like you do all of the time.

All you have left is personal insults. Bring the data man.

This is not too much to ask of most people.

[OnePimpTiger]

I was done presenting information to you long ago...the only thing you give credence to is information that affirms your world view, then you project your narrow-mindedness on anyone who chooses to consider all information. I have better things to do...so go ahead, claim victory again...it's funny when you do that, dr Danth.

[drtom2005]

I was done presenting information to you long ago...the only thing you give credence to is information that affirms your world view, then you project your narrow-mindedness on anyone who chooses to consider all information. I have better things to do...so go ahead, claim victory again...it's funny when you do that, dr Danth.

Where is your evidence sir? Quite frankly, you have shown you have none. Continue with your projection. I have the truth. You do not.The argument is over. Please continue this logical flaw that you think you have over me. LOL.

The Danth Law is only correct when the person speaking does not have the truth. You have shown that you like to ignore the truth. You have shown you misapply logic and supposed scientifc information. Where is your credibility? Nowhere and you have admitted as much. But please continue, it is getting very funny. LOL.

[ensbergcollector]

I answered your question. You missed it apparently. The credible sources (blinded scientists) say that your claim was false. I am sorry it went over your head.

nothing went over my head. I asked who gets to decide how many years are a fair size.

rather then answer, you accused me of trying to use common sense instead of science and said that I obviously didn't get the point of the article. I just asked a question. now, care to answer my question or just ging to insult my intelligence to make yourself feel smarter?

[drtom2005]

nothing went over my head. I asked who gets to decide how many years are a fair size.

rather then answer, you accused me of trying to use common sense instead of science and said that I obviously didn't get the point of the article. I just asked a question. now, care to answer my question or just ging to insult my intelligence to make yourself feel smarter?

The experts, not you or me. The experts stated that 10 years was not a trend. Are you going to deny what the blinded experts say now?

Blinded means they did not know what stats they were analyzing. Blinded means that they had no preconceived notion about the data. They anaylzed a trend of data that they did know what it was for. You can do this in math. This makes the outcome stronger.

As for insulting your intelligence, what was the point of your first question? Was it rhetorical or a real question? If it was a real question, I apologize. I thought your question was using deception so I pointed out the obvious. I do not like deception and misdirection.

[ensbergcollector]

The experts, not you or me. The experts stated that 10 years was not a trend. Are you going to deny what the blinded experts say now?

Blinded means they did not know what stats they were analyzing. Blinded means that they had no preconceived notion about the data. They anaylzed a trend of data that they did know what it was for. You can do this in math. This makes the outcome stronger.

As for insulting your intelligence, what was the point of your first question? Was it rhetorical or a real question? If it was a real question, I apologize. I thought your question was using deception so I pointed out the obvious. I do not like deception and misdirection.

it was a very real question. Notice, i am not arguing that 10 years should be allowed. i was merely asking who gets to decide a fair number of years. because the scientists who arue one side are not "more scientist" then any other. Again, the point is more that there is too much discussion to say this is a closed case.

[drtom2005]

it was a very real question. Notice, i am not arguing that 10 years should be allowed. i was merely asking who gets to decide a fair number of years. because the scientists who arue one side are not "more scientist" then any other. Again, the point is more that there is too much discussion to say this is a closed case.

Discussion does not mean there is truth to any one argument. The discussion is in the general public only, not the scientific community. The discussion in the scientifc community on global warming/climate change is how bad the outcome will be and if we can mitigate the effects. Science has moved on and the public is just wandering behind.

One side has evidence and the other does not. If people want to hold to a faulty belief, I do not care, but I will point out the flaws for others to see.

If you think I am wrong please come with something that can change my mind, which would be good articles and papers with a scientific standard.

I apologize sir, again. I was rude to you and should not have been this way.