If you want to pretend you are about the science, you should at least be able to fake knowing things people who are about the science know.
and you claim to be 'about" the science?
yet are will to ignore 17years of the most recent data
Yes.
Science involves data and assessing it.
I know you oppose that idea, but science doesn't care.
"Considered" is related to an opinion, not to a fact
Explain basic stats to you?
Sorry.
Don't have the time nor the inclination.
Crack open a book.
There is insufficient statistical power in this series to say anything of value, and that's not even getting into that it is limited in geographical scale, making it ill-suited for use globally.
An R squared value of 0.026 shows your modelled trendline is of no significant statistical value.
limited in geographical scale,
Hmm, the USA , 3rd largest country in the world has not warmed for 17 years, despite a continued increase in CO2 concentration?
That is not all consistant with AGW theory or the media propaganda
Once again , if observed experimental results do not expected values, this discrepancy needs to explained or the hypothesis rejected
That you want to over-interpret it doesn't mean I have to pretend that's valid.
Unless you are just plain obstinate, 17 years is sufficeient to require an explaination or the hypothesis rejected
You should know how the data is gathered.
Enough to know the surface data is not suitable for this experiment
Haven't you cut and pasted whole sets of article snippets and memes about the inadequacy of the measurements?
I have posted many times the surface data record is incomplete , filled with errors , biased by the urban island heat effect and has been fiddled with
Your lack of integrity does not apply to me
But yes. You may notice that the article/meme snippet you pasted complains that this data (USCRN) isn't referenced often and doesn't show the commonly referenced ClimDiv set.
Their argument (which you pasted in) was that the USCRN set doesn't show warming and is supposed to be more reliable than the ClimDiv set.
Only since the website posts both sets of data and you didn't bother to just filter to the USCRN data, you have successfully showed that the ClimDiv and USCRN data agree.
That apparently you didn't even notice this is amusing to me, but sure - claim it is because you wanted to undercut your own argument due to being excessively honest.
bigger issue is no warming despite a 10% increase in Co2
you can look and see the bloody think is flat
And your number noodling trend line has a R squared value indicating the trend explains next to nothing in the variation from your calculated mean
You're quite right.
GHG do not take extended 17 year vacations
so this observation is not all consistant with AGW theory or the media propaganda
But that would be ignorant and ill-informed.
That pop-culture understanding of statistics and trend lines and complex systems is as bad as yours isn't an argument against AGW.
A single point compasrion does raise concerns about the propaganda
17 year flat period raises huge concerns about the validity of the 'settled science and the propaganda
Fine.
But you also tried to argue that laying a flat edge across a screen was an adequate analysis, so forgive me if I treat your opinions with even less seriousness than I did before.
its a beter approach than generating a regression tendline with a R squared value of 0.026 and claiming that is definative
That was compleletly misleading
I will gove you the benefit of the doubt and attribute that your lack of understanding rather than an out right intent to decieve
1. It isn't.
2. It is too small and constrained a sample to make a meaningful statement about the trend using just this.
it is flat
17 years is more than sufficient to question a 'settled hypothesis'
there is a very logical explaination >> saturation
but you need to ignore that to keep the hysteria alive
It's a very weak correlation, as you would expect with such a constrained and noisy sample.
yet you tried to equate a meaningless slope with the past
I mean, think about it. You have the data to do the analysis yourself and you refuse to - instead saying it looks flat to you.
you did the analsis and showed there is no statisically significant slope R squared
The bloody thing is flat
That you want to pretend it is a meaningful rebuttal of AGW is just due to your ideological blinders.
I mean, think about it. You have the data to do the analysis yourself and you refuse to - instead saying it looks flat to you.
That's some impressive ideological blindness going on right there.
That is some "I won't look through the telescope and see Jupiter's moons because it might contradict my faith" shit right there.
you are the one who wants to ignore experimental observations and the physical laws of nature, not me
if 150 years is enough to demand phyically impossible societal changes, then 17 years of the lates data is more than enough data to demand a logical scientific explanation
The site doesn't do stats analysis but it provides all the raw numbers that generate the graph.
You can run the numbers yourself if you want.
I know you prefer your "hold something against the screen and guess" method, but don't complain when people don't take you seriously.
you did the analsis and showed there is no statisically significant slope R squared
The bloody thing is flat
So you do think people disagreeing with you is "cancelling".
I haven't once even put you on ignore.
I haven't tried to dox you.
I haven't once complained to get you banned or suspended.
Instead, I mock your ideas and insist that you aren't a serious person on this subject (and others).
I sometimes take the time to point out your errors directly as in this case.
I provide people links to the original articles you reference sometimes, as well as additional engagement with those articles from some in the science literature.
you have provided others with instructions to cancel me
"Mention Adebatic and see if he goes away"
dispicable and pathic
I also post that Johnny LaRue picture sometimes because it is funny.
John Candy was a great guy, who made me laugh and the world is a sader place with out him
So yeah, it is pretty clear "Not treating me and my ideas with the respect I feel I am due" = "cancelling".
And to be fair, that's the position of most of the "anti-cancel culture" people, so you are good and mainstream there, I guess.
you guessed wrong
you have aways had the option to post nothing, yet you are compelled to post half assed, half hidden insulting remarks or provide cancelation instructions to others
