On Mon, 12 May 2008 01:35:17 -0400, V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" =
> trend line.
>
> ==
>
> 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 2007 14.57
> *****************************
>
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
>
> And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
>
>
> "zdzis1" <zdzis1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> Residual standard error: 0.09039 on 8 degrees of freedom Multiple
>> R-Squared: 0.293, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2047 F-statistic: 3.316 on 1
>> and 8 DF, p-value: 0.1061
>>
>> which means that there is no evidence for linear trend
>
> Ahahahaha... You can argue that in <YOUR OPINION> there is no
> statistical
> evidence for a linear trend.
>
> But then you have computed that the probability that the slope is
> positive
> at 94.7%.
>
> "zdzis1" <zdzis1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> 1) probability that the slope is negative: 0.053 2) probability that
>> the slope is positive: 0.947
>
>
> So those KKKonesrvative Denialists who claim that the earth is cooling
> are
> 94.7 percent LIARS...
>
> 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
>> lining up << all those "o"'s >> does not mean anything
>
> Clearly it does.
Go to a library and check what the probabilities mean.
z
|
