Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Have you ever even *heard* of the so-called "hockey stick" graph?
Have you even heard the gales of laughter that graph causes amongst
statisticians?
Name any one such statistician. That does not get paid by the
petrochemical industry.

Name any one suporter of "hockey stick" graphs that doesn't get a payoff
from their support. Climnate change is avery nice industry to be in for
many individuals.

Certainly seems to have resulted in a large increase in straw men...

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Have you ever even *heard* of the so-called "hockey stick" graph?

Have you even heard the gales of laughter that graph causes amongst
statisticians?

Name any one such statistician. That does not get paid by the
petrochemical industry.

Name any one suporter of "hockey stick" graphs that doesn't get a
payoff from their support.

I haven't received my money from the global warming cabal yet. But I live in
hope...

Or do you object to the scientists doing the research getting paid?

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

[snip]
No, it is *far* from a "stupid assertion". It is, in fact, an
assertion made by every single reputable climate scientist in the
entire planet.

Name them.

Even *you* cannot be seriously asking that...

Ad hominem noted. Failure to address the question noted.

It was an idiotic question.

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:17:17 +0100, The Magpie
wrote:

I have posted then twice in this thread. I am not wasting my time
posting them again.

I rather thought not. When challenged you do seem to try to hide.

Refusing to repost a URL that I have posted twice before to this
thread in the previous two days is "hiding" is it? What a
pathetically weak argument.

Then post it. Give me a laugh at it too.

What do you claim is laughable about the Vostok ice data graphs?

Your interpretation of them.

Pyriform wrote:

Or do you object to the scientists doing the research getting paid?

Are you claiming to be a scientist? Excuse me while I laugh.

Pyriform wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

[snip]
No, it is *far* from a "stupid assertion". It is, in fact, an
assertion made by every single reputable climate scientist in the
entire planet.

Name them.

Even *you* cannot be seriously asking that...

Ad hominem noted. Failure to address the question noted.

It was an idiotic question.

In response to an idiotic statement.

Steve Firth wrote:
Pyriform wrote:

Or do you object to the scientists doing the research getting paid?

Are you claiming to be a scientist? Excuse me while I laugh.

You're excused. Now answer the question.

Pyriform wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Pyriform wrote:

Or do you object to the scientists doing the research getting paid?

Are you claiming to be a scientist? Excuse me while I laugh.

You're excused. Now answer the question.

Have I said I object to scientists getting paid? Get back to stuffing
your strawmen.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:17:28 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Or do you object to the scientists doing the research getting paid?
Are you claiming to be a scientist? Excuse me while I laugh.
You're excused. Now answer the question.

Scientists who toe the line and support the academic popular view get
the research grants, support and kudos, scientists who question it get
starved out and ridiculed. Once a theory becomes entrenched, the idea
is to work on fitting any new data to the theory rather than vice
versa. The momentum becomes very difficult to stop.

It has been thus since Archimedes was a boy. It's a brave soul who
dares question the establishment!

--
Cynic

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:04:50 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

What do you claim is laughable about the Vostok ice data graphs?

Your interpretation of them.

I have not interpreted them at all. I have simply described what they
plainly show. i.e. a major cyclical climate change with a very long
cycle time, but with very significant and frequent short excursions or
"noise spikes". Also that the we are near the peak of the most recent
cycle, but it has not quite reached the apex that previous peaks
achieved. I'm not sure how you can claim that it doesn't show those
things - it's simly a description of the temperature line of the graph
with no attempt to explain or interpret whatsoever.

I have also stated that the length and frequency of the spikes mean
that it would not be possible to determine any general trend by
observing a change over a time period that is comparable in length to
the span of the spikes - which is a pretty basic statement that I
cannot see being disputable for any set of data measuements.

--
Cynic