Are you kidding, first of all my quote from the respected scientist had nothing to do with the phony consensus. secondly, the Cook study was debunked as complete crap in a peer reviewed journal. Only 41 papers and 14000 supported the consensus. 97% claim exposed / debunked. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/0...r-math-errors/ â0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%â PRESS RELEASE â September 3rd, 2013 A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. A tweet in President Obamaâs name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous: âNinety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.â [Emphasis added] The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ. The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
What a bunch of bullshit, fraudcurrents. Its not a select example. Temps have not been going up to 20 years depending on the temp record you use. Just look at the chart... temps are not going up. its not a statistical trick. You have a weak brain if you think that chart is going up. In fact if you read the fine print you will see temps are going down (within the margin for error) ... and it does not have the 1998 el nino in it. [/QUOTE]
I don't think jerm understands anything about charts/trends moving averages etc. It makes one wonder how he is able to trade. He probably watches a losing position get worse and worse on the chart and doesn't know why his account is losing money. I mean, I've showed him charts like this numerous times and still he does not get it. But we all know he's totally faking it.
I don't get it, either, maybe he missed the "change" in the title. Sure, one can argue that +0.4C over 158 months is not significant, but one can't argue that the +0.4C over 158 months did not occur (if you accept the data points).
ricter what are you talking about... we know fraudcurrents is a lying troll... but you are typically sharp. in the middle of the chart it shows the change to be -0.03. (which is a negative number although I am sure within the margin for error.) The top of the chart shows 158 months.
you talking about reading charts? you just presented a chart with yearly data points when we speaking of a more recent chart with monthly data points.
Ok, now I see what you mean. Like this chart (the ADP employment report): <img src="http://bloomberg.econoday.com/showimage.asp?imageid=26304"> We lost around 200k jobs back in Sep '09, and gained about 200k jobs recently, so there has really been no gain in jobs over the interval.
no not like that chart at all. 1. it starts with the data from the turn of the century so it is not arbitrary. 2. many shorter term moving averages will stil show no warming. 3. you get the the result if you take the chart back a few more years. 4. The warming period preceding this non warming period was a similar length. 5. The real point being the models call for significant warming over this length of time and it did not happen. 6. Even the eye can see there are plenty of data points below the line balancing the data points above the line. And if you run the models you can see they have failed because our "no warming" falls out of the 2 standard deviation level. See the Professor Hans Van Storch article.