You do remember the "hide the decline?" Those numbers were changed to make it look like it's warmer, the temps actually dropped last decade.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Gruss Gott <grussg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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:311179 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
