Global warming?

[Blib27]

Originally Posted by tw

I don't know where you are getting your beliefs from. But numbers say global temperatures even in the past decade have increased significantly.

Numbers from six sources differ significantly ... a subjective conclusion. Vary so little as to be virtually same ... a conclusion that also includes numbers. Same chart with two completely different declarations. Which conclusion do you entertain? The subjective one? Or one based in science?

It's wonderful what you can do with massaged figures and pretty pictures, isn't it?

Here's a quote from Professor Phil Jones. As you know, Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The chap at the centre of this "science".

Here's what he said in reply to a question posed to him by the BBC last year.

Originally Posted by Jones' Interview

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. 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.

Now, he directly contradicts what you say.

How strange is that? Care to comment?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Blib27

Now, he directly contradicts what you say.
How strange is that? Care to comment?

Did you read what he said? Or just do as Limbaugh, Hannity, et al do?

Data from ten years is significant. But not statistically significant; does not meet necessary confidence levels. Meanwhile, data that demonstrates global warming is from hundreds of years. And from millions of years. Is well beyond statistically significant. In fact Dr Muller's report before a very Republican Congress said data is of the highest quality.

What do we know? Global warming created by mankind (at something slightly faster than 0.12 degrees C per decade) is at least 50 times faster than any previous world record for destructive global climate change. That once and rare previous disaster also took 200,000 years to correct.

Statistically significant data is further confirmed so many other sources including deep core geological studies. By changes in atmospheric content. Even confirmed by world wide ocean data. It even explains the degradation of reefs including the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Where is all the data that disputes it. Never posted.

Ten years of data is not statistically significant. Read what he said.

Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods,

And data from those "longer periods" exists from numerous independent sources. Worse, data to contradict is virtually null. All data comes to similar conclusions.

Your soundbyte intentionally distorted what he really said. It is called 'brainwashing by soundbyte'.

Since that source so intentionally harmed an honest discussion, then we should have the name of that scumbag. So that the enemies of moderates can be cited repeatedly as disciples of Limbaugh and Hitler. Who do we go after for intentionally perverting a logical discussion? Who intentionally misquoted Phil Jones? And what is their political agenda and party affiliation? Your soundbyte was obviously provided by someone with the integrity of a rapist or pedophile. An honest quote would have included what Phil Jones really said.

[Blib27]

Originally Posted by tw

Your soundbyte intentionally distorted what he really said. It is called 'brainwashing by soundbyte'.

Since that source so intentionally harmed an honest discussion, then we should have the name of that scumbag. So that the enemies of moderates can be cited repeatedly as disciples of Limbaugh and Hitler. Who do we go after for intentionally perverting a logical discussion? Who intentionally misquoted Phil Jones? And what is their political agenda and party affiliation? Your soundbyte was obviously provided by someone with the integrity of a rapist or pedophile. An honest quote would have included what Phil Jones really said.

Blimey TW. The more I read those words the more I wonder what on earth is going on? The quote was a direct and FULL one from a Q&A session conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation in February of last year.

Are you really willing to say that the BBC are scumbags, paedophiles or rapists?

Here's a link to the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

If you do not, I shall report you.

He disagrees with your contention. You are wrong. Either you debate with me sensibly or you continue to rant.

What is it to be TW?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Blib27

The quote was a direct and FULL one from a Q&A session conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation in February of last year.

What you quoted intentionally distorts and misrepresents what that BBC interview reported.

Phil Jones said:

Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods,

Curiously, Phil Jones says UT's claims from his only source are statistically insignificant. Jones then provides data that is statistically significant.

Why did you ignore the relevant sentences? Why did you even ignore this:

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Jones even provided numbers. Why did you ignore his major point to claim something contrary to what he said? BBC did not misrepresent what he said. Only you did that.

Another fact that he stated, that was so relevant, and that you ignored.

I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Did you not understand the BBC interview? Or not read all details and numbers? Why did you ignore his many important points and numbers while completely misrepresenting one paragraph? You perverted what the BBC reported by misquoting one paragraph and by ignoring relevant numbers.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Blib27

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

no matter ...

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

He disagrees with your contention. You are wrong. Either you debate with me sensibly or you continue to rant.

What is it to be TW?

I'm feeling ya dude - Déjà vu

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Blib27

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

If you do not, I shall report you.

Evidence in full?

Quote mining may not cause global warming, but I dont believe it is a reportable offense.