Re: The Real Junk Science

On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:47:06 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:s32l91t1hh35d6nbe882v6lj7n1s5jrp2o@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:07:45 +0000 (UTC), swanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Eric
>> Swanson) wrote:
>>>Here's what the recent data shows, when the trends for earlier years in

>>>the
>>>time series are recalculated.  Truncated MSU TLT 5.1 monthly time
series,
>>>beginning in 1979 and ending December of year shown:
>>>
>>>     1992    -0.003372
>>>     1993    -0.044424
>>>     1994    -0.043102
>>>     1995    -0.012106
>>>     1996    -0.007443
>>>     1997    0.0001289
>>>     1998    0.0702235
>>>     1999    0.0579218
>>>     2000    0.0466267
>>>     2001    0.0551461
>>>     2002    0.0724646
>>>     2003    0.081553
>>
>> You really think one solar cycle means ANYTHING regarding clobal
>> climate?  ANYTHING AT ALL? Are you serious?
>
>So, in one and the same breath you shout "the data shows cooling" and
"the 
>warming is due to solar cycles".

Use googe and save face next time before parroting your lines.  I have
been quite consistant in stating the fact that the data shows no
warming and that the cooling it does show is statistically
insignificant.   If you need help (and you do) here's nine examples
over the last few years:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&num=30&q=%22insignificant+cooling%22+author%3AWm+author%3AJames&safe=off&qt_s=Search

>If you weren't you even you wouldn't believe you.

See above.  Your inability to figure out what is said doesn't equate
to any problem on my part.

>>>Notice the cooling trend seen in 1992 and later, until the warm year of

>>>1998,
>>>attributed to El Nino.  The El Nino effect lasted a few years, but the 
>>>newer
>>>data again shows an increasing trend.  Here's the data, which now shows
a
>>>global trend of 0.086.
>>>
>>>     http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.1
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!  Climate change claims based on a few years is absolutely
>> meaningless testimnial BS.
>
>Indeed.  And all of your "contributions" to the discussion are based on
the 
>few years of satellite data.  Kinda funny, isn't it?

What's funny is you can't tell the difference between stating the fact
that the data shows no warming and your imagined claim of cooling. 

But back to the point you apparently couldn't even address, ANY sample
of a few years or even a few decades is absolutely meaningless
testimonial for sup****ting any claim of global climate change.
Certianly a sampleof less than even one 11 year solar cycles is is a
joke.

William R. James