"Roger Coppock"  wrote in message
news:1191790876.860366.157870@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 7, 1:43 pm, Whata Fool  wrote:
> > Woger  wrote:
> > >On Oct 7, 10:20 am, Anonymous  wrote:
> > >> i want to get skills in studying climat where do i go to
lern?
> >
> > >Your local junior college probably has a courses in
> > >Astronomy, Chemistry, Earth Science, Physics, or
> > >Statistics that would help.  They would also have a
> > >basic English course that covers spelling.
> >
> >            He fell for it!!!!     :-)  :-o/
>
> It was a joke?  With you fossil fools it's hard to tell.
> We've had such humorous claims, like 'Nitrogen is the
> primary greenhouse gas' and 'Gore won't debate,'
-- 

Huh?
Are you saying Gore WILL debate?
Where? when?



Regards

Bonzo

"We know from Josef Dietrich that the extremes were very big
during his time. There were very cold winters and very mild
winters, very wet summers and very dry summers," he says, adding
that the range of weather extremes has been smaller in the 40
years he has recorded data for the Swiss national weather
service."
"That's why I'm always cautious when people say the weather
extremes now are at their greatest. Without historical context
you lose control and you rush to proclaim every latest weather
phenomenon as extreme or unprecedented," Brother Konrad Hinder,
"Weatherman" , Einsiedeln Monastery, Switzerland.

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?