broadssailor wrote:

On 9 Jan, 01:36, abelard wrote:

Here are some (no, not the Stock Market) for you to ponder
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...g-in-2009.html

you're being connedhttp://www.abelard.org/sums/teaching_number_arithmetic_mathematics_un...

--
web site atwww.abelard.org

Do you have URLs (or at least reference to a source) for all on that
page? Without it, it is no more than opinion....

A week or two I asked abelard, following Copenhagen, if there was such
thing published as graph showing CO2 levels on one axis, and Global
Temperatures on the other. This simply must exist as it is the
fundamental support for the AGW position.

He replied that it's in IPCC3, and gave me a link to that document.

Not the specific reference I was after, but the whole document.

It later transpired that a counter-Copenhagen letter written by
Monckton makes it clear that no such graph has been published by any
of the AGW supporters, although Monckton then uses IPCC data to show
that full implementation of Copenhagen, at a cost of £trillions, will
save 0.02 degC of global warming.

A couple of things spring from this.

Abelard does not understand what he has read, having failed to grasp
that the claimed key point of IPCC3 isn't there.

He is clearly unfamiliar with scientific works, or he would be aware
that it is the norm to give journal, volume, date, paper title, page,
and author(s) as the reference to a particular claim. He needs to do
this in order to make the links to items in his badly-coloured web
site accessible, as a matter of urgency. At present it is no better
than saying 'I published a paper in The journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, look it up', and expecting the enquirer to do all the work.

On the other had, such a slapdash procedure could be used to disguise
the unusable and irrelevant that has otherwise been advanced as
authoritative and analytical.

At a glance, it is possible from the two graphs 'offered ' as
'evidence' on the offending page to guess with short odds at a trend
line. Neither would be encouraging to a climate change alarmist.
You really must revise your web pages to give them more value
(REFERENCE!) ,and preferably re format to something other than the
crasss primary colours which would be attractive to my 7yo grandson
and his friends but not appropriate for something intended to be
treated seriously (? - or have I missed the point :-)? ) by a wider
audience.
Failing that, stop wasting your, and for that matter everybody's time
with your self seeking posts.

I've tried putting such things to abelard in the past, but his only
response is essentially name-calling.


--
from
Kim Bolton