That's not the same claim, and you are not that illiterate.adoucette said:No such lack of integrity.
I said: your claim of acceleration of the rise in global temps
You did indeed make that claim:
“
Originally Posted by iceaura
And climate change so far has been very rapid, and seems to be accelerating.
Hence, deliberately deceptive - lying.
I quoted it, above: "Your conclusion ("in other words") does not follow". Your rewording was an invalid conclusion from the data, not a restatement of a valid assertion. You cannot conclude, from an absence of individual year record breaking average temps, that the average global yearly temperature is not increasing. (The assertion was also false, but that was not my point). Take a stats class.adoucette said:You drew an obviously and very simply invalid conclusion from some data, revealing incompetence at statistical analysis, was the claim. It stands - unless you would prefer it be included among your deliberate attempts to deceive?
”
No invalid conclusion was drawn
Then you won't post shit like this:
Carefully choosing the timescale of trendlines, especially in essentially irrelevant but plausibly presentable data sets, is one of the more insidious ways to lie with statistics - the only question is whether you believe that what you posted there deals with the issue of increasing - and seemingly accelerating - climate change. I think you do, hence the incompetence estimation.adoucette said:Indeed, the data from the Hadley Centre shows, that the global Air/Sea temperature trendline for 2000 through 2010 is a flat 0.0 C per year.
A trendline of 0.0 C per year for that period indicates no warming over the last decade
Yep. Sorry. It isn't rocket science, this basic reasoning stuff.adoucette said:You listed three factors predicted by the AGW monitors - in advance - to be likely sources of trouble as consequences of a warming trend.
Then you asserted such fulfillment of prediction was evidence against the AGW alarmists.
That's kind of stupid.
”
Nope,
Last edited: