In article ,
michael adams wrote:

Any extrapolation of climate change based only on around 100 years
worth of hard data of varying quality and reliabilty will
of necessity require a fair amount of conjecture.

That is true, but is seriously misleading, because there is a LOT
more data of adequate quality - if you are up to handling it.

If you're of the opinion that your conjecture is superior to that
of the meteorologists whose opinion I quoted then good for you.

No, my statement is not conjecture. I am a statistician,
incidentally.

To repeat what I said, there is damn-all evidence for a cyclic
phenomenon in this case and, in situations like this one, almost all
cases of apparent cycles are created by something like an ARIMA
process. I could also add that the observations from previous
centuries are quite good enough in quality to debunk the theory
that there is a single predominant cycle.

While I am pretty rusty in this aspect of statistics, I could still
explain in more detail than I expect you want to know about this
issue.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.