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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (19436)	7/10/2012 5:45:19 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 85487

"Of course they made a statement, we don't know their methodology so I can't comment further." they sat around doing bongs hits. one guy says I need a raise so I can buy that beach house, they all agree. The figured they needed more budget money next year, not that reid and obama have done a budget in 3.5 years. So they said lets scare the little children (That's democrats for you people in rio linda), 'lets do some odds thing on this normal heat wave, people don't understand math esp odds. so lets come up with a scary number. it's got to be over a million, but not to high and it can't be round numbers, so they did a couple more bong hits and came up with 1,594,323

To: Little Joe who wrote (19436)	7/10/2012 5:55:04 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 85487

You think NOAA manipulates the data and has it figured wrongly. Good lord! During the June 2011-June 2012 period, each of the 13 consecutive months ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895-present record. The odds of this occurring randomly is 1 in 1,594,323. " I have already posted to you the reasons why the data they have is suspect. Add to that the fact that they have manipulated the data as brumar has documented several times on the thread and NOAA has as much credibility as Eric Holder. Lastly, I suspect that something is wrong with the calculations. If I did my math right they have 217 years of records, or 2,604 months 1/3 is 864 months. That simply means that the last thirteen months fell into the top 864 months, that doesn't sound so strange to me. Of course they made a statement, we don't know their methodology so I can't comment further.