Statisticians reject global cooling

[HAL 9000 96]

The numbers do not lie. One has to be a real dumbazz to not notice the actual short-term weather trends and then have the idiocy to conclude its a climate phenomenon.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The numbers do not lie. One has to be a real dumbazz to not notice the actual short-term weather trends and then have the idiocy to conclude its a climate phenomenon.

The theory has to fit the numbers, not the other way around. If the assumptions built into the current theory prove true, then the theory holds. If the assumptions do not play out as expected, then it is time to find a new theory. In the end, it is still all a ####### shoot. One of the fundemental rules of Probability Theory, is that previous results do not bias future results in a purely random system. The more assumptions built into a theory, the more random the eventual results will be.

My argument is based more on the process, rather than the actual theories. Gotta go to work.

[HAL 9000 96]

The numbers do not lie. One has to be a real dumbazz to not notice the actual short-term weather trends and then have the idiocy to conclude its a climate phenomenon.

The theory has to fit the numbers, not the other way around. If the assumptions built into the current theory prove true, then the theory holds. If the assumptions do not play out as expected, then it is time to find a new theory. In the end, it is still all a ####### shoot. One of the fundemental rules of Probability Theory, is that previous results do not bias future results in a purely random system. The more assumptions built into a theory, the more random the eventual results will be.

My argument is based more on the process, rather than the actual theories. Gotta go to work.

The misconception is that the theory applies to this particular set of numbers. The retards doing most of that mis-application are the ones that don't have a clue as to what climate consists of (what the climate shift models are stating) and what the weather patterns say in the short term. Plus the fact that statisticians have enough knowledge to identify outlying points in the data, that the naysayers are counting as 'part of the trend.' Not very smart of some of them.

[HAL 9000 96]

It also helps to point out that the latest set of numbers analyzed points to the projected mean shifts in temperature to be double that previously projected...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The numbers do not lie. One has to be a real dumbazz to not notice the actual short-term weather trends and then have the idiocy to conclude its a climate phenomenon.

The theory has to fit the numbers, not the other way around. If the assumptions built into the current theory prove true, then the theory holds. If the assumptions do not play out as expected, then it is time to find a new theory. In the end, it is still all a ####### shoot. One of the fundemental rules of Probability Theory, is that previous results do not bias future results in a purely random system. The more assumptions built into a theory, the more random the eventual results will be.

My argument is based more on the process, rather than the actual theories. Gotta go to work.

The misconception is that the theory applies to this particular set of numbers. The retards doing most of that mis-application are the ones that don't have a clue as to what climate consists of (what the climate shift models are stating) and what the weather patterns say in the short term. Plus the fact that statisticians have enough knowledge to identify outlying points in the data, that the naysayers are counting as 'part of the trend.' Not very smart of some of them.

HAL, you are my favorite killer computer. You just left the Lone Ranger's argument for dead. Even Tonto can't resuscitate it.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The numbers do not lie. One has to be a real dumbazz to not notice the actual short-term weather trends and then have the idiocy to conclude its a climate phenomenon.

The theory has to fit the numbers, not the other way around. If the assumptions built into the current theory prove true, then the theory holds. If the assumptions do not play out as expected, then it is time to find a new theory. In the end, it is still all a ####### shoot. One of the fundemental rules of Probability Theory, is that previous results do not bias future results in a purely random system. The more assumptions built into a theory, the more random the eventual results will be.

My argument is based more on the process, rather than the actual theories. Gotta go to work.

The misconception is that the theory applies to this particular set of numbers. The retards doing most of that mis-application are the ones that don't have a clue as to what climate consists of (what the climate shift models are stating) and what the weather patterns say in the short term. Plus the fact that statisticians have enough knowledge to identify outlying points in the data, that the naysayers are counting as 'part of the trend.' Not very smart of some of them.

HAL, you are my favorite killer computer. You just left the Lone Ranger's argument for dead. Even Tonto can't resuscitate it.

Were the scientists correct when in the 70's they had "consensus" for Global cooling? Keep in mind this is within the mythical 100 year warm up.

OOOOO I left the Seniora Guano's argument for dead. Even Batman can't resuscitate it.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Seeing as how I live in Canada now, I'm all in favor of global warming.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Seeing as how I live in Canada now, I'm all in favor of global warming.

WE need to Annex Canada.

[Kevin and 10]

Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[DeadPoolX 9]

Seeing as how I live in Canada now, I'm all in favor of global warming.

WE need to Annex Canada.

Well, I bet the U.S. would like that considering Alberta has a ton of oil.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Seeing as how I live in Canada now, I'm all in favor of global warming.

WE need to Annex Canada.

Well, I bet the U.S. would like that considering Alberta has a ton of oil.

Hey if they don't want it - we'll take it. Since we got SOOO much oil from Iraq and all.. That blood for oil thing you know.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Were the scientists correct when in the 70's they had "consensus" for Global cooling? Keep in mind this is within the mythical 100 year warm up.

OOOOO I left the Seniora Guano's argument for dead. Even Batman can't resuscitate it.

What are talking about? Can you at least cite a source? And please make sure it is from a reputable body of science like:

the World Meteorological Organization

the American Meteorological Society

the American Geophysical Union

the American Association for the Advancement of Science

...not some nut with a degree in biology, living in his mother's basement and blogging his "theories."

[HAL 9000 96]

Well Steven... I guess someone here needs to read up more on what kind of modeling Global Cooling was addressing vs Global Warming is looking at now. And may I add... many of the scientists back in the day aren't the same scientists doing the analysis now so its even more incongruous unless, of course, the scientifically illiterate would care to divulge in scientific philosophy that only practicing scientists actually use.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well Steven... I guess someone here needs to read up more on what kind of modeling Global Cooling was addressing vs Global Warming is looking at now. And may I add... many of the scientists back in the day aren't the same scientists doing the analysis now so its even more incongruous unless, of course, the scientifically illiterate would care to divulge in scientific philosophy that only practicing scientists actually use.

You know, HAL, when I'm sitting on my sofa, I swear I'm the best quarterback since Roger Staubach. I think my sofa has magical properties that allow me to see clearly, things that other cannot...or maybe it's the nachos?

[mawilson 2,133]

Well, damn. Somebody call all those bodies of scientists and tell 'em they've got it all wrong.

They got it all wrong? Statisticians REJECT global cooling, and therefore ACCEPT global warming,

confirming what your "bodies of scientists" are saying, no?