"Fran"  wrote in message
news:1191802597.815573.161080@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 7, 3:39 pm, The Nerk  wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 2:31 pm, ralph  wrote:
> > > No we are not winning anything at all anymore are we?
> > > Rugby, has beens, Cricket, has beens, Tennis, has beens.
> > > The pollution and mental stupor has kicked-in.
> > > Liberal Australia. A nation of losers and wankers.
> > The news was great about the Rugby. I'd love someone to post
a pic of
> > that cunt Howard's face while Mortlock was lining up that
potentially
> > match-winning kick with a couple of minutes to go and after
it missed.
> > It'd be worth framing.
>
> However that may be, Australia's loss maybe the Australian
taxpayers'
> gain.
>

Hey Fran, I see we're both looking forward to another term under
Howard.

Great, eh?

Regards

Bonzo

"There is now no doubt that the UN's International Panel on
Climate
Change (IPCC), has a history of sacrificing science for political
agendas. This conclusion is based upon the IPCC being found
revising
the writings of contributing scientists (without their consent),
accepting as valid the findings of the "hockeystick" graph, and
completely unreceptive to valid scientific criticism. Michaels
also
documents a number of other errors and misleading statements by
the
IPCC. This is the stuff of political agendas, not of sound
science." Michael R. Fox Ph.D

"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?