"Window Licking" <Moron.With.A.Computer@Talk-n-Dog..com> wrote in
message news:v%NPi.615$th2.454@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:
> > "Roger Dewhurst"  wrote
> >> Produce what graphs you like but the fact is Eric the Red
needed a warmer
> >> climate to farm in Greenland, a warmer climate was needed to
make wine in
> >> the north of England and the maories needed a warmer, wetter
and more
> >> stable climate to paddle their canoes to and from New
Zealand.
> >   And current temperatures are significantly warmer than
during that period,
> > and will continue to warm rapidly.
> >   Ice loss from the Greenland Ice sheet has accelerated from
50 cubic
> > kilometers per year to 300 cubic kilometers per year over the
last 2 years.
> >   The Greenland ice cap is collapsing. ...

at 0.14% per century!

-- 

Regards

Bonzo

"In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure
of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since
1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend,
let alone a dangerous one." Bob Carter, Research Professor of
Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

"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"  babbled in message

<claptrap snipped>

There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?

Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up this ng
with your mindless drivel.

You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.

Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!