Statistics - Page 2

All this arguing is why I encourage the remarketing of reasons to use materials and energy the right way into terms everybody can agree on which is money, comfort, national security, etc. - with "the environment" and "global warming" or "climate change" at the very, very bottom of the list.

Because not doing so requires people outside the choir to change their entire belief systems, vote liberal, become homosexual, watch art films, practice satanic religion, delve into culture, buy a mac, dress emo, wear patchouli oil instead of deodorant, live in a yurt in a park "to make a statement", put on some peel-n-stick dreadlocks for authenticity, quit one's job in finance, hold peace signs up and maybe, maybe get a job at some communist owned grocery store where "please" and "thank you" are considered bourgeoisie and not to be given to mere customers.

Forget "why can't we get along?", Why can't we just meet people where they are? As long as they do what we want, who cares WHY they do it?

Problem is that you can say carbon regulation is to create jobs, energy independence, etc., but many conservatives will still oppose it purely because it's government regulation.  But as it so happens, that is exactly how Kerry/Graham/Lieberman/Obama/etc. are marketing the climate and energy bill as a jobs and energy independence bill.  For that reason it has a chance to pass.

I *love* you.  Really I do.  I finally got around to reading your complete refutation of my contention that the GISS data all show warming from 1975 onward.  You're response?  To provide this graph:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722540030&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

You are completely correct.  That station shows no warming from 1970 onwards.  That there is no data from 1970 onwards is beside your point, I'm sure in your mind you've extrapolated from the last temperature and concluded "no warming." 

That then you go off on the "stochastic" tact is great!  Of course climate is all so naturally variable that global temperature wanders all over the place without any change in the forcings at all so that an increase in the forcing from CO2 of 2.5 W/m^2 would have absolutely no effect on this highly stochastic and unstable system.  Why, that makes perfect sense.  Especially if you are emotionally disposed to reject the idea to begin with.  I mean, if you're going to believe one thing that makes you feel better, why not two?

Wunsch, by the way, does not dispute that the warming in the modern era is anthropogenic in origin, although he was the one who proposed the random walk to begin with (although he was explaining ice age initiation and termination).  So your contention about Wunsch is dead wrong.  Wunsch suggested the ice age starts/stops could be explained in terms of a random walk, not the modern warming.  And if you get that wrong, I have to wonder whether you are coloring your other opinions using the crayon of what you want to be true.  Given your take on the temperature records above, I suspect you color everything the color you think it should be, regardless of what a more rational and objective analysis suggests it is. 

p.s.  I am still snickering at the counter evidence you provided.  If anyone else clicked on the links I suspect they are laughing even harder now.  And as for 11 and 12, where there is data up to 2000?  I suspect if you did a linear regression on both time series from 1970 until the end of the data set in 2000, the fitted line would have a positive slope.  (That would denote warming, by the way.)  

What did you find in my arguments "unreasonable"? Could you be a bit more specific?

climate change is real guys!