Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (4811)	2/4/2009 8:15:00 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Well, it's certainly a step in the right direction that you are actually attempting to post evidence of your position. So I applaud you for that. However, there were some obviously glaring errors in this guy's analysis. First off, the graph he shows has a curve going up and then down, ostensibly to "prove" that the globe was cooling during the down part of that curve. He fails to mention that the y-axis clear shows that this curve represents the change of temperature over each year and the change in each year was positive! This means that the downward part of the curve simply proves that the rate of temperature increases slowed down, but average temperatures continued to rise during that period. Pretty big misrepresentation of the data on the author's part and not very well disguised, I might add. If that wasn't enough, he then goes on to claim that we've seen a cooling trend during the Bush Administration. First of all, this is false. Temperatures continued to rise during the Bush administration, however, there were several years that were below trend. Now any statistician or scientist will tell you that unless you see 6 or more data points in a row below the long run average, then the upward trend remains intact and the 1 or 2 below trend data points can safely be classified as outliers. So once again, in posting this article, you have proved that you have no understanding of science or statistics, not does the author of that article. Nice try, though.