Reader Kyle wants me to prove that 17 years of no warming is statistically significant.
A slope of zero is by definition not statistically significant, because it indicates no relationship between the two axes. One axis is changing, and the other one isn’t.
Seventeen years is a long time. That is how long Obama’s literary agent thought he was born in Kenya.
1991
2004
No doubt just a coincidence that the Petraeus sex scandal also occurred right before he was about to testify about Benghazi, and the TARP “crisis” occurred right before the 2008 election. Obama is just a lucky guy.
2007
amazing isn’t it…..the first 17 years predicted our doom
…and the last 17 don’t count
Exactly true! The lunatics started wetting themselves over 17 years of data, before they now say that 17 years isn’t long enough to worry. We essentially quit warming in 1998. Which is when Mikey came out with his hockey stick. 17 years prior, no one was babbling about global warming.
ditto….LOL
..and don’t forget..every single thing the morons are debating…is the result of computer games predictions
…and the computer games have not made one single accurate prediction
They began wetting themselves after 8 or 9 years of data as Gore/Hansen were already screaming about global warming in 1988. It’s funny how we have had a clear cooling trend of nearly 10 years now.
There were people who were – back into the 60’s. But until the mid-late 90’s (and in particular after the hockey stick), it was a scientific debate – differences of opinion, etc. Only in the late 90’s did it begin to mutate into something different – a full-fledged social hysteria.
Climate change is the only scientific theory that no one is ever allowed to disagree with EVER. I hear some comparisons to the politics of evolution, but evolution was a controversial theory for sixty to seventy years, or more, before a concensus developed and even now there are some disagreements with the overall process of evolution.
Climate change is the only discipline in science where the “science was settled” within a decade of first gaining traction. There is no other scientific theory that was as inviolable as climate change, even when huge holes began to appear in the theory.
Even areas like plate tectonics had a movement of scientists who didn’t agree with the theory for the longest time. An entire movement. Yet, I doubt these scientists and their skepticism were referred to as deniers for requiring a higher standard of proof to justify the original theory.
The reason, in my opinion, is because this issue was ALWAYS political. It was a scientific theory that was basically developed (at least further advanced) by politicians and not scientists at all. Then those politicians began throwing ridiculous amounts of money at it.
So what has always driven climate change is money and politics, not science.
I think maybe Kenya is one of the 57 states…
🙂
it’s 58!!
..the moron said he had visited 57, with one more to go
And the media raked Dan Quale over the coals for his spelling of potato(e).
Anybody that was paying attention knows that no American would ever say there was 58 states. That should have rang alarm bells among the normal people who were fooled by Bambi’s speeches.
And potatoes can be spelled with an “e” so he may have had a reason for his mistake.
In 75 we were getting ready for the next ice age and in 88 Hansen was promoting AGW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKAUo3pGkak
I do believe the dip in world temperatures on the chart around 2008 was from zero sunspots and an manufacturing economy that was shut down. Heat energy in from the sun was very low. Heat energy released into atmosphere was very low from man kind also as world economy was basically shut down. Then in 2010 the sun heated back up and so did manufacturing/ economy. Dip then spike.
Seem about right???
The earth has been cooling and 2010 was an el nino year, which makes it warmer. Minus 2010, though, the trend is down.
Even with the 2010 El Nino taken into account the cooling trend has increased after 2008.
Why would manufacturing less make it cooler? The level of CO2 actually went up during those years, primarily because of China, India, et al.
The sunspots were the most likely culprit, as the sunspots were what made temperatures rise in the first place.
It is only natural for man to think the world revolves around his activities, it is what defined us before the age of science, it takes knowledge to realize that we are a very minor player.
Precisely, a knowledge of the “scientific type” usually helps in this regard.
For Kyle…. perhaps you could tell us the correct length of time for statistical significance in determining climate change. It certainly might not be 17 years….but whose faction originally claimed it was? If not 17 years, then there was never any evidence for any warming either. Perhaps it takes 60 years: in which climate alarmists should probably have never done the sky-is-falling-in thing in the first place, eh?
To see what is really going on publish the Had3SST trend from 2003 – June 201`3
Another climate moron: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/yes-we-should-do-something-about-the-weather/article13464858/
Another point for Reader Kyle: The climate scientists predicted big INCREASES in temperature. So even if you question the statistical significance of 17 years of not much warming, it directly disproves the “official” predictions.
Reblogged this on The Firewall.