The absurdity of the science media's handling of climate science
is well illuminated in this week's issue of New Scientist.

In an editorial, the editors try to square the principle of
falsification (which they claim is vital for science to progress)
with their belief that any such attempt would undermine political
attempts to mitigate climate disaster:

"Some scientists are challenging our ideas on climate change,
which is vital if we are to progress. But to overturn present
thinking will need very strong evidence because, as the IPCC
states, confidence in the idea that anthropogenic warming is
changing our world has never been higher." (New Scientist, 14
April 2007)

Yet, at the same time, the editor's zealous defence of the
apocalyptic climate consensus and their fierce resistance to
provide critical researchers a forum for rebuttals or
falsification attempts undermines their own integrity.


http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Editorial-bias.htm

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?

"Bonzo"  waffled in message
>
> The absurdity of the science media's handling of climate science
> is well illuminablah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah

Tell me Bozo, what's it like marching to the beat of your own drum?