> RoMunn wrote: > > That's not true, and it goes to the heart of why I have objected to the > "science" from the start.
And yet we still had the warmest decade in *at least* 130 years. That duration happens to be over double the statistical amount necessary to declare a decade-over-decade trend known as "special cause" variation. In other words, if you graph it out we're climbing an extremely steep hill that is higher than every other charted variation for that period. So whether the IPCC is high on doobies or not, shits warming up homey. But I agree that you'll need to practice that IPCC story for your children. Cause they're going to ask you why you didn't shit about a trend that was double the statistical requirement. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:311175 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
