Re: New Jason Satellite Indicates 23 Year Global Cooling

On Mon, 12 May 2008 00:37:30 -0400, V-for-Vendicar wrote:

> V for Vendicar.
>>>    I asked you earlier if you can find a negative slope that is a
>>>    better
>>> fit.
>>>
>>>    You refused to answer.
>>>
>>>    Quite telling.
> 
> "zdzis1" <zdzis1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> 1) probability that the slope is negative: 0.053 2) probability that
>> the slope is positive: 0.947
> 
>   So the 10 years of data provided show that there is a 94.7% chance
>   that
> the earth is warming.
> 
>   So those KKKonesrvative Denialists who claim that the earth is cooling
>   are
> 94.7 percent LIARS...
NO - go to a library!

> 
>   Now how many years of earlier data do you need to conclude that they
>   are
> 99.99% liars?
> 
>   4 earlier years? 5?
> 
> 
> "zdzis1" <zdzis1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> Man, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. The fit is best, but
>> it is not siginficant!
> 
>   Correlation Coefficient >.5.  is quite significant for this data set.
Go to a library an see what "significant" means

 
>   And of course all we need to prove Bonzo and the other denialists who
> claim the planet is cooling is to have a best fit that has a positive
> slope and a reasonable correlation coefficient.  Which we have.
> 
>   You are 94.7% certain that they are liars.
No - go to a library
 
> 
> "zdzis1" <zdzis1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>  In statistics we only accept results which are significant - look it
>>  up
>> somewhere. How dumb are you really?
> 
>   I consider a 94.7% probability that someone is a liar, a highly
> significant observation..
> 
>   Don't you?
I don't - go to a library!

z