Global warming

[Jake]

Um, yeah. Why don't you shut the  up about that?

[John Dibble]

Global Warming? I could care less. As for ratifying the Kyoto Accord, good one. Lets severly over regulate the economy, hurting it badly, to fix something that may be a problem and certainly won't be one until we're all dead.

They Kyoto treaty also won't cover China, and they'll be the biggest coal burners soon enough - won't really affect much in the long run.

[Jake]

Good point. Sort of like the CTBT. Stops our nuclear tests, but gives DPRK, India, Pakistan, etc an exception.

[J. J.]

Where's J.J. to argue no statistical correlation, since the correlation must be less than 95%? LOL.

Well, since we are not really discussing the long term data, or statistics, at this point, it's not relevent, though JFRAUD's posts seldom are.

We have a record of global temperature changes, long term.  The "Little Ice Age," which occured in historical times, has already been noted.  We've also seen cooler periods, which lasted for several decades during the last century (and yes, in my lifetime).

I heard the argument about a new glacial period and global cooling in the late 1970's.  I'm still waiting for the wooly mamoth to make a comeback.

Remember our temperature/CO2 arguments? We never did figure out the exact correlation, but you seem to think that you can't have statistical significance at the 95% confidence level with a correlation below 95%. You had 5 months to figure out that you were wrong. For simple linear regression, a correlation of 94% will be statistically significant even for 5 data points.

The correlation is below 95%, but it's definitely statistically significant, which doesn't prove causation, but labrotory experiments have shown that.

We actually did deterime that it was less than 85%.

Would you cite the "labrotory experiments," that demonstrate this.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Where's J.J. to argue no statistical correlation, since the correlation must be less than 95%? LOL.

Well, since we are not really discussing the long term data, or statistics, at this point, it's not relevent, though JFRAUD's posts seldom are.

We have a record of global temperature changes, long term.  The "Little Ice Age," which occured in historical times, has already been noted.  We've also seen cooler periods, which lasted for several decades during the last century (and yes, in my lifetime).

I heard the argument about a new glacial period and global cooling in the late 1970's.  I'm still waiting for the wooly mamoth to make a comeback.

Remember our temperature/CO2 arguments? We never did figure out the exact correlation, but you seem to think that you can't have statistical significance at the 95% confidence level with a correlation below 95%. You had 5 months to figure out that you were wrong. For simple linear regression, a correlation of 94% will be statistically significant even for 5 data points.

The correlation is below 95%, but it's definitely statistically significant, which doesn't prove causation, but labrotory experiments have shown that.

We actually did deterime that it was less than 85%.

Would you cite the "labrotory experiments," that demonstrate this.

We never determined for sure that it was less than 85%. However, it'd still be statistically significant far below there.  You are WRONG if you still think that a correlation of 85% can never be statistically significant.


Visible light comes in and is not reflected back into outer space by a greenhouse gas. It then hits the earth, and lis reflected back as infrared light. Some of this infrared light is refelected back to earth by the greenhouse gas.
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/greenhou.html

Here's an experiment.
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

[J. J.]

Where's J.J. to argue no statistical correlation, since the correlation must be less than 95%? LOL.

Well, since we are not really discussing the long term data, or statistics, at this point, it's not relevent, though JFRAUD's posts seldom are.

We have a record of global temperature changes, long term.  The "Little Ice Age," which occured in historical times, has already been noted.  We've also seen cooler periods, which lasted for several decades during the last century (and yes, in my lifetime).

I heard the argument about a new glacial period and global cooling in the late 1970's.  I'm still waiting for the wooly mamoth to make a comeback.

Remember our temperature/CO2 arguments? We never did figure out the exact correlation, but you seem to think that you can't have statistical significance at the 95% confidence level with a correlation below 95%. You had 5 months to figure out that you were wrong. For simple linear regression, a correlation of 94% will be statistically significant even for 5 data points.

The correlation is below 95%, but it's definitely statistically significant, which doesn't prove causation, but labrotory experiments have shown that.

We actually did deterime that it was less than 85%.

Would you cite the "labrotory experiments," that demonstrate this.

We never determined for sure that it was less than 85%. However, it'd still be statistically significant far below there.  You are WRONG if you still think that a correlation of 85% can never be statistically significant.


Visible light comes in and is not reflected back into outer space by a greenhouse gas. It then hits the earth, and lis reflected back as infrared light. Some of this infrared light is refelected back to earth by the greenhouse gas.
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/greenhou.html

Here's an experiment.
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

Once again, the site you quote doesn't support what you say:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You'll not that they are referring to a number of gases, not just CO2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here it again shows that they are not getting numbers that they would expect if CO2 was the factor.  Basically, if we'd cut CO2, there is no evidence that it would prevent global warming.

The experiment, however, is not designed to take into account what happens when CO2 increases; plant growth increases and more CO2 is removed due to that.

We did, in fact determine that there was less than an 85% correlation between CO2 changes and temperature.  Likewise, in theory, if increases in CO2 was either the cause or effect of warning, we should see a theoretical 100% relationship.  We don't.  Even using a low statistical standard (95% confidence level), we should be seeing something well above the 85% (or less) level.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Where's J.J. to argue no statistical correlation, since the correlation must be less than 95%? LOL.

Well, since we are not really discussing the long term data, or statistics, at this point, it's not relevent, though JFRAUD's posts seldom are.

We have a record of global temperature changes, long term.  The "Little Ice Age," which occured in historical times, has already been noted.  We've also seen cooler periods, which lasted for several decades during the last century (and yes, in my lifetime).

I heard the argument about a new glacial period and global cooling in the late 1970's.  I'm still waiting for the wooly mamoth to make a comeback.

Remember our temperature/CO2 arguments? We never did figure out the exact correlation, but you seem to think that you can't have statistical significance at the 95% confidence level with a correlation below 95%. You had 5 months to figure out that you were wrong. For simple linear regression, a correlation of 94% will be statistically significant even for 5 data points.

The correlation is below 95%, but it's definitely statistically significant, which doesn't prove causation, but labrotory experiments have shown that.

We actually did deterime that it was less than 85%.

Would you cite the "labrotory experiments," that demonstrate this.

We never determined for sure that it was less than 85%. However, it'd still be statistically significant far below there.  You are WRONG if you still think that a correlation of 85% can never be statistically significant.


Visible light comes in and is not reflected back into outer space by a greenhouse gas. It then hits the earth, and lis reflected back as infrared light. Some of this infrared light is refelected back to earth by the greenhouse gas.
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/greenhou.html

Here's an experiment.
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

Once again, the site you quote doesn't support what you say:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You'll not that they are referring to a number of gases, not just CO2.

LOL, you're always desperate to try to insinuate that I'm wrong, even though I'm not. Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And what they said applies to all greenhouse gases, including CO2. Do you have a g point?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Key phrases:
"than would be expected"
"amplify" (implies correlation)
Yeah, they're getting more effect than they thought they would. That hardly disproves that CO2 and temperature are correlated, genious. Obviously one of the following is true
1. Their estimates are off, it should be higher (like it is)
2. This data is only for Antartica, perhaps conditions elsewhere effected this.
3. There may be some sort of positive feedback going on. Positive feedback is something like where every $1 spent on the UC system increases the economy by $4

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's irrelevant, you're seeing the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere to temperature. At our current record high CO2 levels, I doubt increasing CO2 has much affect on plants. Any negative feedback here would be extremely weak.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How did "we" determermine that there was less than 85% correlation? Eyeballing the graph, and saying "I J.J. who suck at statistics think that it's less than 85% correlation" hardly proves anything.

No one ever claimed that there should be a 100% relationship. Volcanoes, sunspots, butterflies flapping their wings, the earth's tilt changing, continential drift, and various other things all effect temperature. Temperature is a chaotic system. It would be insane to say that if we have 0.1% CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature must be 68 degrees. 

WRONG AGAIN. For the last time: If you have thousands of data points, a correlation of 85% is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. I know you suck at statistics, but you'd think you'd have learned this after 5 months of statistics discussion all from this.

The statistical significance of correlation depends on both the correlation and the sample size. Suppose we do linear regression with  n points and get a correlation of R^2, and we use 95% statistical confidence
n=2 R^2=100% is not statistically significant
n=1000 R^2=50% is statistically significant

[J. J.]

[LOL, you're always desperate to try to insinuate that I'm wrong, even though I'm not. Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And what they said applies to all greenhouse gases, including CO2. Do you have a g point?

You flip flopped from CO2 to "greenhouse gasses."  CO2 may not be cause or effect of this.  There may be something else out there entirely that does.  It's a better idea to identify specifically if there is something.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Well the historial doesn't support it; neither does the more current evidence.  It does that warming is not behaving as the theory that CO2 is the "cause" does not explain a temerature increase.

2.  If this is limited to just Antartica, the we couldn't call it "global."

3.  No body has been able to explain the "positive feedback.

You've just explained why we should not by the theory.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No we're seeing how CO2 behaves in an atmosphere without any natural way to remove it.  If we are talking about global climate change, we better take in account the nature of the planent it is happening on.  While you may think this is Mars, with no plant life, the rest of us think we are on Earth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You posted it as "proof," I merely counted the amout of times it didn't happen as it should.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps you missed the words, "in theory."  I readily concede that 100% is well to high and that other factors should come into play, but we cannot claim with 95% certainty that there is a relationship between temperature increases and CO2 that would cause these increases.  We can claim that it's less than 85% certain and just doesn't cut it at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One day you'll realize that coin tosses do not equate with statistical analysis.  Until then, the gentle reader can read these threads, assuming that that continue to have any doubt of you being unable to comprehend statistics:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

It is becoming exceptionally easy to exaluate your statistical argumements.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[LOL, you're always desperate to try to insinuate that I'm wrong, even though I'm not. Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And what they said applies to all greenhouse gases, including CO2. Do you have a g point?

You flip flopped from CO2 to "greenhouse gasses."  CO2 may not be cause or effect of this.  There may be something else out there entirely that does.  It's a better idea to identify specifically if there is something.

If you had any intellectual honesty, which you obviously don't, you'd admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and so obviously that applies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Well the historial doesn't support it; neither does the more current evidence.  It does that warming is not behaving as the theory that CO2 is the "cause" does not explain a temerature increase.

2.  If this is limited to just Antartica, the we couldn't call it "global."

3.  No body has been able to explain the "positive feedback.

You've just explained why we should not by the theory.

[/quote]
1. So the theory that CO2 and temperature are related must be wrong because the data shows that temperature depends on CO2 even more than we expect? Only in J.J. land.
2. The data they talk about is. Again you're being some combination of stupid or stubborn. O
3. Why should one have to prove it? All we're looking for is a statistically significant correlation, which we have found.
How did I explain anything? Obviously they're related, what the  are you trying to argue? You are the most  stubborn person on the planet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No we're seeing how CO2 behaves in an atmosphere without any natural way to remove it.  If we are talking about global climate change, we better take in account the nature of the planent it is happening on.  While you may think this is Mars, with no plant life, the rest of us think we are on Earth.
[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, it matters not what sort of feedback there is directly on CO2. What matters is that the levels of atmospheric CO2 are increasing, and that is positively correlated to temperature.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You posted it as "proof," I merely counted the amout of times it didn't happen as it should.
[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does times it didn't happen as it should? Even when you cherry-picked a time period (which is useless for a statistical analysis of all of the available data), it was still found to correlate very highly.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15214.msg339258#msg339258

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps you missed the words, "in theory."  I readily concede that 100% is well to high and that other factors should come into play, but we cannot claim with 95% certainty that there is a relationship between temperature increases and CO2 that would cause these increases.  We can claim that it's less than 85% certain and just doesn't cut it at all.
[/quote]

Anyone intelligent claiming anything about climate change is not going to demand that one thing explain 100% of the temperatures. Assuimg that you're right and the R^2 correlation is 80%  (even though you have given no good evidence for why it's not higher), that means that 80% of the change in temperature is predicted by change in CO2 levels. That's pretty damn high. This data had many many points, so the 95% confidence interval on an R^2 of 80% will be pretty narrow, and won't go anywhere near 0%.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One day you'll realize that coin tosses do not equate with statistical analysis.  Until then, the gentle reader can read these threads, assuming that that continue to have any doubt of you being unable to comprehend statistics:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

It is becoming exceptionally easy to exaluate your statistical argumements.
[/quote]
You ing idiot. Did you read a single ing thing I said? If you can not accept that a linear correlation of R^2=100% for 2 data points is not statistically significant (since you always get that, no matter what the points), or a linear correlation of R^2=50% for 1000 data points is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, then you are a very stubborn man that theres no point in ever arguing with. Are you stubborn or not? Because 5 months later here, you still haven't learned a ing thing about statistics.

As for coin tosses, I was talking about similar statistics with coin tosses to try to educate you, but that didn't work. You do not need 95% heads or a correlation of 95% to determine statistical significance. I've explained this many many times. You are a ing stubborn brick wall.  you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In J.J land:
"Well you got a 94% on this test, which is supposed to be an A, but it's not statistically significant".

[J. J.]

[1. So the theory that CO2 and temperature are related must be wrong because the data shows that temperature depends on CO2 even more than we expect? Only in J.J. land.
2. The data they talk about is. Again you're being some combination of stupid or stubborn. O
3. Why should one have to prove it? All we're looking for is a statistically significant correlation, which we have found.
How did I explain anything? Obviously they're related, what the f**ck are you trying to argue? You are the most  stubborn person on the planet.

The key Phrase is "a greenhouse gas."  The site isn't saying, there is a relationship between just this greenhouse gas and global warming.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's irrelevant, you're seeing the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere to temperature. At our current record high CO2 levels, I doubt increasing CO2 has much affect on plants. Any negative feedback here would be extremely weak.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "cherry picked" time period was half a millon years.  If we were really looking to "cherry pick" a time frame, we could look at the last century.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Confidence level is not the same as confidence level.  You are confusing apples and oranges.

I am not claiming that we should reject the theory unless it works 100% of the time.  There are clearly other factors.  if the theory is correct, we should see it approach 100%  It should be less than 95% oof the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, I'm in the habit of reading the garbage you post, and the links you cite.  I post quotes from those.  They are not saying the same things you are claiming.

This isn't a coin toss and the math won't be the same; maybe some day you'll relize that.[/quote]

[J. J.]

In J.J land:
"Well you got a 94% on this test, which is supposed to be an A, but it's not statistically significant".

I love how you tell other people what you think the yare saying.

Now let me try it:

From JFRAUD Land otherwise known as the People's Republic of the Loony Left":

"We don't have any solid evidence that something works, but because it fits my ideology, we should do it.  And we should believe because I'm JFRAUD and I believe it."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, you never responded to my point that an R^2 of 100% might be statistically insignificant, and an R^2 of 90% might be statistically significant, depending on the sample size. You are a stubborn intellectually dishonest fraud. You lose.

[MaC]

it's a load of crap. 

Quoting my manager Bill:  I go outside and it's really hot, my girlfriend says it's global warming.  I go outside and it's really cold, my girlfriend says it's global warming. No, it's weather.

Seriously, where do the environmentalists come up with this crap?  There's global warming because it's colder outside.  That's about the stupidest crap I've ever heard.

If global warming existed, I'd go outside on a freezing day "honey, it's too cold out, hand me some of those aerosol cans, <rattle, pssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh>"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

it's a load of crap. 

Quoting my manager Bill:  I go outside and it's really hot, my girlfriend says it's global warming.  I go outside and it's really cold, my girlfriend says it's global warming. No, it's weather.

Seriously, where do the environmentalists come up with this crap?  There's global warming because it's colder outside.  That's about the stupidest crap I've ever heard.

If global warming existed, I'd go outside on a freezing day "honey, it's too cold out, hand me some of those aerosol cans, <rattle, pssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh>"

[Gabu]

it's a load of crap. 

Quoting my manager Bill:  I go outside and it's really hot, my girlfriend says it's global warming.  I go outside and it's really cold, my girlfriend says it's global warming. No, it's weather.

Seriously, where do the environmentalists come up with this crap?  There's global warming because it's colder outside.  That's about the stupidest crap I've ever heard.

If global warming existed, I'd go outside on a freezing day "honey, it's too cold out, hand me some of those aerosol cans, <rattle, pssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh>"

That's, er, kind of an oversimplification of the theory of global warming, to say the least.  No, the use of one single aerosol can is not going to warm the atmosphere to room temperature.  The real argument goes like this:

1. Factories, cars, and other assorted mechanical items put out millions of tons of so-called "greenhouse gases" that accumulate in the upper atmosphere.
2. These greenhouse gases trap heat from the sun in the atmosphere.
3. This trapped heat slowly (really slowly) makes the Earth warmer than it naturally would be.

This is bad not because of the heat itself, but because the heat will melt the polar ice caps, disrupt natural climates (which could be disasterous to farmers), and generally upset the natural balance of the earth.  However, forget the stuff in The Day After Tomorrow; even the scientists who fervently believe in global warming agree that the images in that movie are pretty much reactionary crap that should be ignored in a serious talk about global warming.

It remains to be seen what the case is, but it cannot be denied that there are things happening that indicate the occurance of global warming - though it could be argued with just this evidence that this warming is nothing to worry about.  There is, of course, a natural warming and cooling trend, but there have been numerous reports that the warming is speeding up and going much faster than it should if it were naturally occurring.  As well as that, numerous scientists have claimed that the metaphorical "smoking gun" has been found in studying the heat content of oceans.  What they found is that, for every square meter of surface area, the planet is absorbing almost one Watt more of the sun’s energy than what reflects back into space, and that if this absorption stays constant, it will steadily increase temperatures as predicted in theories on global warming.

Of course, there are also your nay-sayers - even some scientists feel this way - who claim either that the evidence is inconclusive or that it blatantly goes against the idea of global warming.  Still, the scientific data we currently have is what it is.  It would be another oversimplification to state - as many do - that the Earth is simply heating up as it naturally does, so there's nothing to worry about.  As was said before, there is some evidence available that says that the warming has been speeding up over the past 50 years or so, an acceleration that, according to scientists, should not happen under natural circumstances.  Assert that global warming is a myth if you want, but you should take this evidence into account when you do.

[David S]

It is very unlikely that we can significantly reduce our use of fossil fuels in the near future. If global warming is real maybe we should be looking at ways to counteract it, like making our atmosphere more reflective, or growing plants that can consume more CO2 from the air. We should have some strategies in our back pocket in the event that we start seeing undesireable consequences of warming.

Also the amount of heat radiated from the planet goes up with the 4th power of the absolute temperature so warming a few degrees will increase the heat loss significantly. Having the planet somewhat warmer may not be all bad. Crops could be grown in places  that are too cold now.

We look at the planet as it has been during our lifetime and say thats the way it should always be. But if you look at the history over a much longer time span it seems the one thing it does not do is stay the same.

[ATFFL]

Also the amount of heat radiated from the planet goes up with the 4th power of the absolute temperature so warming a few degrees will increase the heat loss significantly. Having the planet somewhat warmer may not be all bad. Crops could be grown in places  that are too cold now.

I don't drink, but I would gladly sample some wine from Londinium.

[David S]

^^^^ Might be good. 

BTW The place where I am sitting now was once covered by hundreds of feet of ice. Then the climate warmed, the ice melted, the great lakes formed, and the land became hospitable to humans. I like it better this way.

[J. J.]

Wow, you never responded to my point that an R^2 of 100% might be statistically insignificant, and an R^2 of 90% might be statistically significant, depending on the sample size. You are a stubborn intellectually dishonest fraud. You lose.

You statistical claims have been responded to here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15


Your lack of credibilitiy on statistics is so great, that no futher response is needed.  If any poster is interested, the can look at the arguments you've made, I've made, and read the comments of other posters.

If they so desire, they can even guess about your desire to raise issue again and again, and your claims that everybody hates you, and draw their own conclusions.

[J. J.]

It is very unlikely that we can significantly reduce our use of fossil fuels in the near future. If global warming is real maybe we should be looking at ways to counteract it, like making our atmosphere more reflective, or growing plants that can consume more CO2 from the air. We should have some strategies in our back pocket in the event that we start seeing undesireable consequences of warming.

Also the amount of heat radiated from the planet goes up with the 4th power of the absolute temperature so warming a few degrees will increase the heat loss significantly. Having the planet somewhat warmer may not be all bad. Crops could be grown in places  that are too cold now.

We look at the planet as it has been during our lifetime and say thats the way it should always be. But if you look at the history over a much longer time span it seems the one thing it does not do is stay the same.

The points are valid.

We do know some things, however.

From about 800 (possibly earlier) until about 1450, the earth was warmer, possibly warmer that the 1980-2004 period on average.  There is evidence that this occured in Europe, North and South America.  We know some things about that period as well.

1.  Life didn't end, and humans actually did well during this period.

2.  We do not know the cause, but we can rule some things out.

A.  Volcanic activity (there would be evidence).

B.  Industrialization, as there wasn't any on a global level.

We also know that around 1450, the temperatures cooled.  Some Canadian glaciers continued to advance until 1890 (and I've known relatives that were alive when they were still advancing).  Now, industrialization was in full swing when this happened, so it's possible that it's related.

Now, we don't understand the mechanizms that cause these shifts, but we do know that, after industrialization, the cooling trend ceased.  Is the cooling trend a "good thing." 

I would note that,as David S. notes, that extreme global cooling is not a good thing, unless your overjoyed with glaciers on Broadway (that's not the new Webber musical).

We better understand the concequences of both global warming or the lack of it, before we start massive programs to change it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

J.J., do you still claim that the critical value for statistical significance at the 95% confidence level is an R^2 correlation of 95%?

Too bad you don't have the intellectual honesty to actually read my arguments before you claim I'm wrong. You are scum.

[J. J.]

J.J., do you still claim that the critical value for statistical significance at the 95% confidence level is an R^2 correlation of 95%?

Too bad you don't have the intellectual honesty to actually read my arguments before you claim I'm wrong. You are scum.

Asked and answered here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

I'll let your own words damn you.  Basically, you've demonstrated that you cannot understand the statistical argument.  Since it's been exlpained and most other posters are capable of understanding it. I can only enourage you to see someone in person that is famililiar with statistics and perhaps they can explain it to you. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

J.J., do you still claim that the critical value for statistical significance at the 95% confidence level is an R^2 correlation of 95%?

Too bad you don't have the intellectual honesty to actually read my arguments before you claim I'm wrong. You are scum.

Asked and answered here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

I'll let your own words damn you.  Basically, you've demonstrated that you cannot understand the statistical argument.  Since it's been exlpained and most other posters are capable of understanding it. I can only enourage you to see someone in person that is famililiar with statistics and perhaps they can explain it to you. 

Are you incapable of answering YES or NO questions?

 Answer clear, do you believe that the critical value is always 95%?
If not, tell me how the critical value depends on correlation and sample size.

[J. J.]

Are you incapable of answering YES or NO questions?

 

Since you've proven repeatedly that you cannot understand statiistics, as can be seen here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

there is little point of expanding on it further.  You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting, repeatedly.  Listening to you rant on more only displays more of your ignorance.

This is the statement that that I stand behind.  If X causes a change in global temperature, we should be able to see this occuring 95% of the time, to have a confidence level of 95% that X causes global warming.  We do not have that with CO2.

(Now, we might with other greenhouse gasses or with a combination of other factors, but we don't with just CO2 levels.)