Thursday, September 27, 2007



By Steven Milloy



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298306,00.html



Two new books on global warming for kids are out. One is designed
to reduce anxiety among children; the other is designed to
heighten it.



So which is better? That depends on how you like your facts -
right or wrong.



Sept. 1 saw the release of "The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global
Warming," co-authored by Al Gore acolyte and "Inconvenient Truth"
co-producer Laurie David and former advertising copywriter and
environmental activist Cambria Gordon.



Two weeks later, "The Sky's Not Falling! Why It's OK to Chill
About Global Warming" was published.



It was authored by resource economist Holly Fretwell, an adjunct
professor at Montana State University and a senior research
fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC).



Judging from the authors' credentials alone, you may already
suspect where this comparison of the two books might be headed -
and you really don't have to go too far into either book to
confirm that suspicion.



The key issue in the controversy about whether humans are causing
global warming is whether man-made emissions of carbon dioxide
are causing global temperatures to increase.



If increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't drive global
temperature, then there would seem to be little reason to panic
about greenhouse-gas emissions for the sake of averting global
warming.



On page 18 of the David-Gordon book, the authors present a graph
of the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and
global temperatures for the last 650,000 years.



The graph is accompanied by text that reads, "The more carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature climbed.
The less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the lower the
temperature fell. You can see this relationship for yourself by
looking at the graph on the left ...



"What makes this graph so amazing is that by connecting rising
carbon dioxide to rising temperature, scientists have discovered
the link between greenhouse gas pollution and global warming."



But page 19 of the Fretwell book presents essentially the same
graph with accompanying text that reads, "Because the lines of
the graphs seem to move together, many people believe that it
proves that carbon dioxide causes global warming. However, a
closer look at the evidence shows that temperatures peak hundreds
or even thousands of years before carbon dioxide levels peak."



So the two books are precisely 180 degrees apart on the crucial
issue of the global warming controversy. Which book is correct?
Drum roll please.



"What really makes [the David-Gordon] graph 'amazing' is that
it's dead wrong," says a new report from the Science and Public
Policy Institute.



"In order to contrive a visual representation for their false
claim that carbon dioxide controls temperature change, David and
co-author Cambria Gordon present unsuspecting children with an
altered temperature and carbon dioxide graph that falsely
reverses the relationship found in the scientific literature,"
says the SPPI report.



"The actual temperature curve in the chart was switched with the
actual carbon dioxide curve. That is, the authors mislabeled the
blue curve as temperature and the red curve as carbon dioxide
concentration."



You might think that with a mistake of that magnitude, the
David-Gordon book - like the infamous hockey stick graph - would
be immediately consigned to the ash heap of global warming
history. But like "The Down-to-Earth Guide," you'd be dead wrong.



The David-Gordon book is published by Scholastic, the children's
publishing company whose self-described mission is to "help
children around the world to read and learn."



"This essential guide will help you understand why global warming
happens, how it affects the planet, and the simple steps you can
take to get involved in protecting the environment," reads the
Scholastic Web site's plug for the David-Gordon book.



Scholastic has acknowledged the error in the graph and plans to
issue a correction - but the correction will only involve the
graph, according to SPPI staff. Scholastic is refusing to
acknowledge and correct the erroneous text, even though the graph
expressly served as the basis for the text.



While Scholastic may want to risk its reputation with the
David-Gordon book, parents who want their children to have the
correct information about the pivotal relationship between
atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature may want to
check out Fretwell's "The Sky's Not Falling."



While Fretwell's book does not come close to matching the number
and visual quality of distract-from-the text illustrations that
the David-Gordon books contains, Fretwell's strength is that her
text is easy to read and, most importantly, is scientifically
accurate.



"The Sky's Not Falling" is meant to spark discussion and rational
thinking among kids - rather to scare them.



A recent front-page Washington Post story reported that global
warming is taking a terrible emotional toll on children.



"For many children and young adults, global warming is the atomic
bomb of today," says the story. "Parents say they're searching
for 'productive' outlets for their 8-year-olds' obsessions with
dying polar bears. Teachers say enrollment in high school and
college environmental studies classes is doubling year after
year. And psychologists say they're seeing an increasing number
of young patients preoccupied by a climactic Armageddon."



Fretwell's book - that is, the presentation of facts rather than
the fomenting of fear - is a terrific antidote to the
intellectual and emotional child abuse committed by climate
alarmists.



Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He
is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an
adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.


-- 

Regards

Bonzo

"Debate over whether human activity causes Earth climate change
obscures the immensity of the dynamic systems that create and
maintain climate on the planet. Anthropocentric debate leads
people to believe that they can alter these planetary dynamic
systems to prevent what they perceive as negative climate impacts
on human civilization. Although politicians offer simplistic
remedies, such as the Kyoto Protocol, global climate continues to
change naturally." Extract From A Paper, Gerhard (2004),

"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?

On Oct 8, 4:29 pm, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
 wrote:
> "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?


Have the GHG properties of Methane been experimentally demonstrated ?

chemist wrote:

> On Oct 8, 4:29 pm, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
>  wrote:
> 
>>"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?
> 
> 
> 
> Have the GHG properties of Methane been experimentally demonstrated ?
> 

   Yep, same as Co2.

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
in message news:o1sOi.5055$9F1.1678@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "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.
Here is a plot of the DATA  (Not some "fit") ...

Looks like a horizontal line to me!

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


Regards

Bonzo

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"

"chemist"  wrote in message
news:1191883064.666984.312710@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 8, 4:29 pm, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
>  wrote:
> > "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.
Here is a plot of the DATA  (Not some "fit") ...

Looks like a horizontal line to me!

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


Regards

Bonzo

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"

"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?

"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?

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
in message news:9gBOi.5092$9F1.2766@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "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.
>

Looks like a horizontal line to me!

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


Regards

Bonzo

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
in message news:VfBOi.5091$9F1.4057@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "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.
>
Looks like a horizontal line to me!

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


Regards

Bonzo

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"

"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?

"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?

On Oct 8, 11:41 pm, Server 13  wrote:
> chemist wrote:

>
> > Have the GHG properties of Methane been experimentally demonstrated ?
>
>    Yep, same as Co2.
Give me the reference to the experiment.
I've been given them for CO2 but not for Methane.

"chemist"  wrote
> Have the GHG properties of Methane been experimentally demonstrated ?

  Don't you know?  Chemist...

  The answer is yes.

  My general handbook of Chemistry and Physics from the 1950's has the 
absorption spectra of methane listed.

  No competent Chemist would ask such a stupid question.

"chemist"  wrote
> Give me the reference to the experiment.
> I've been given them for CO2 but not for Methane.

A new atlas of infrared methane spectra between 1120 per cm and 1800 per cm

Blatherwick, R. D.; Goldman, A.; Lutz, B. L.; Silvaggio, P. M.; Boese, R. W.

1979nsf..rept.....B