|
|
|
date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:39:52 +1000,
group: uk.environment
back
Re: GW or Coincidence? African Flooding Emergency Now Affecting 18 Countries - Voice of America
"john fernbach" wrote in message
news:1191619689.737020.178250@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 7:19 am, "Paul E. Lehmann"
wrote:
> john fernbach wrote
Climate change disaster is upon us, warns UN
· Emergency relief chief calls for swift action
· 12 out of 13 'flash' appeals in 2007 related to weather
· In pictures: floods, droughts and storms across the world
· World in crisis map, 2007
"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have
begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
drastic decline in food production- with serious political
implications for just about every nation on Earth." Newsweek
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of
the past several years, a growing number of scientists are
beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory
meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global
climatic upheaval." Time
"Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output." New York Times
All of this sounds very ominous. That is, until you realize that
the three
quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of
Newsweek Magazine
and The New York Times, and Time Magazine in 1974.
http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html
They weren't referring to global warming; they were warning of a
coming ice
age.
Let me repeat, all three of those quotes were published in the
1970's and
warned of a coming ice age.
Regards
Bonzo
âThere 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.â Michael R. Fox Ph.D
date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:39:52 +1000
author: Bonzo
|
Bonzo - Chronic dishonesty
"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?
date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:40:23 -0700
author: HangEveryRepubliKKKan
|
|
|