|
sir prince duke alevine
|
longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11 th, 2014 at 6:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11 th, 2014 at 6:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11 th, 2014 at 1:18pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11 th, 2014 at 12:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11 th, 2014 at 11:53am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11 th, 2014 at 10:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11 th, 2014 at 9:17am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10 th, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10 th, 2014 at 9:27am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10 th, 2014 at 9:27am: peer reviewed, by buzzanddidj The MET responded furiously factually, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no absolute, grinding halt - but a "relative pause" ( ... or "relative flattening"), on the warming rate increase of prior decades * Even WITH this "pause" in the rate of increase - the decade 2001-2010 still surpassed the decade 1991-2000 as the warmest decade global average temperature in recorded history your red section is a perfect example of truly appalling statistical manipulation.. the claim is technically correct but stated in a way as to give the reader the impression that warming was continue when it has long since stopped. we except nothing more from climate deniers like the MET and Buzzard I can't believe you actually "teach' this stuff when you don't even understand what an average is. fme. its not about statistics, it is about the interpretation of them which is biased. the average of 1991-200 IS lower then the next decade but what is missing and is the entire point of the graph is that warming stopped in 1998. this is the dishonest use of statistics in an attempt to have non-thinking people believe warming is continuing, when it isn't. Have you noticed how so many groups - CSIRO included - use temperature graphs that end in 2000?? I wonder why? no I don't and nor should you. If you want to push the climate denier position of continuing warming then you stop giving information after 2000. half of statistical abalysis is honesty in interpretation. that's why I like to see raw data. more often than not, the interpretation is skewed towards a pre-determined outcome. If the global average temperature of 2001-2010 is greater than the global average termperature of 1991-2000 then one can only preclude that warming stopped in 1998. Yep. Makes sense.  do you specialise in being obtuse? the METs quote (from buzzard) was designed specifically to try and cover up the halt in warming. It is a good example of when strict accuracy and truth are not the same thing. Thank heavens I don't attend your "seminars." This statistic is a statistic which is independent of anything to do with the "supposed" halt in warming. It clearly shows that the average global temperatures have increased, does it not? and if you use the average over ONE year and not ten what then??? guess what it shows that there was a small rise and then NO RISE. how can that be? because averaging any data is a form of manipulation. whether it is valid or invalid, right or wrong, is the question you should ask a bit more often rather than simply accept information you LIKE rather than information that is correct. Right so now we're looking at it year on year only. Ok. YOu ever heard of trends? THe point being that of course we look at trends, or averages, because it is through averages that we can tell whether something is happening or not. Not based on year on year, as you are suggesting. Keep with your massive conspiracy, and keep believing in fables. It makes perfect sense as to why you choose to be so ignorant about this.
|
Forum
Pages: 
