Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, for his amazing knack of
driving people who would otherwise lead calm, unruffled lives
into spasms of teeth-gnashing, incandescent fury. I used to be
one of them, but not anymore. Instead, I'm just going to sit back
and watch the fun.
Who wants to bet he flies over to Oslo in his private jet to pick
up the prize?
-- 

Regards

Bonzo

The big promoters of the Kyoto Protocols are nations in the EU,
their friends in the UN, and the members of the IPCC. Most have
socialist leaning governments, impressively inefficient in their
use of energy, and inefficient workforces. Many of the major EU
nations are economically inefficient as measured by energy (Btus)
used per dollar of GDP. The US is far more efficient and
productive, which are the main grievances the EU has with the US.

Extract From Flaws in the Global Warming Debate By Michael R. Fox

"Bonzo"  wrote in message 
news:47103efc$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, for his amazing knack of
> driving people who would otherwise lead calm, unruffled lives
> into spasms of teeth-gnashing, incandescent fury. I used to be
> one of them, but not anymore. Instead, I'm just going to sit back
> and watch the fun.
"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!!!

On Oct 13, 12:26 am, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
 wrote:
> "Bonzo"  wrote in message
>
> news:47103efc$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...> Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, for his amazing knack of
> > driving people who would otherwise lead calm, unruffled lives
> > into spasms of teeth-gnashing, incandescent fury. I used to be
> > one of them, but not anymore. Instead, I'm just going to sit back
> > and watch the fun.
>
> "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?

Can't contradict him, CAN you, envirofaggot?

"Rich"  wrote
> Can't contradict him, CAN you, envirofaggot?

  Oh, lookie.  Another RepubliKKKan Loser who can't read a simple plot.

  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 Bozo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

On Oct 21, 5:09 am, Whata Fool  wrote:
> http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

Still pushing that fake graph!

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

Phil  wrote:

>On Oct 21, 5:09 am, Whata Fool  wrote:
>> http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
>
>Still pushing that fake graph!

           No, that is the first time I posted it, and the first time
I have seen it.

>http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

            So should I look at that with confidence that you and that 
author are not biased in any way and that pure, fully verified science
is all it contains, with no questionable opinions?

            The url may have been referenced at another page that
had a wealth of argument for rational and clear headed thought
of all issues instead of the "stop burning carbon or we all die"
mentality and hysteria.

           Frankly, if it occurs over a long enough adaptive period,
a planet with the same climate in the tropics as Earth and a
little warmer in the moderate regions would be a big improvement,
too bad there are so many big buildings at such low elevation.

           But few buildings will endure the centuries, and possibly
the huge urban areas with all employment engaged in nothing
but retail sales and money record keeping will not be able to
sustain the status quo anyway, think about it, the first thing
the socialists will do is send the freeloaders to the fields.

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:32:30 -0700, Phil. wrote:

> On Oct 21, 5:09 am, Whata Fool  wrote:
>> http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
> 
> Still pushing that fake graph!
> 
> http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

I notice he mentions "arithmetic errors", but didn't see any specifics. 
What were the errors?