Met office lies
 

In message , abelard
writes
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:36:44 +0000, Kim Bolton
wrote:

abelard wrote:

it does not go unnoticed that you have been incapable of answering
any of the questions i posed for you

...says abelard, who steadfastly refuses to answer any put to him.

ROFL

you don't answer questions...you don't ask questions..

your normal mode of behaviour is to repeat back whatever i
have recently posted....
then followed by some immature and meaningless comments


What does one call a verbose troll?
--
Gopher .... I know my place!

Met office lies
 

In message , abelard
writes
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 15:25:55 +0000, Gopher wrote:

In message , abelard
writes
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:36:44 +0000, Kim Bolton
wrote:

abelard wrote:

it does not go unnoticed that you have been incapable of answering
any of the questions i posed for you

...says abelard, who steadfastly refuses to answer any put to him.

ROFL

you don't answer questions...you don't ask questions..

your normal mode of behaviour is to repeat back whatever i
have recently posted....
then followed by some immature and meaningless comments

What does one call a verbose troll?

a redundant bolt-on? bit like an appendix....
no apparent use...may cause a pain...

:-))
--
Gopher .... I know my place!

Met office lies
 

abelard wrote:

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:36:44 +0000, Kim Bolton
wrote:

abelard wrote:

it does not go unnoticed that you have been incapable of answering
any of the questions i posed for you

...says abelard, who steadfastly refuses to answer any put to him.

ROFL

you don't answer questions...you don't ask questions..

I gave you a perfectly good methodology of processing tree-ring data.

I believe from your reply to that that you don't have the numeracy to
understand it, or the science to apply it.

Your only reply was an ad hominem.

your normal mode of behaviour is to repeat back whatever i
have recently posted....

But you post rubbish - lists of cut and paste, badly linked and
completely unanalysed - and portray that as authoritative.

then followed by some immature and meaningless comments

Get your web site in order by adding analysis to your cut and paste,
and providing specific links rather than "it's in IPCC3".

The Russians have criticised the cherry-picking of their extensive
data by the CRU. As an exercise, write an analytical critique of the
this key topic and post it on your web site (with a specific rather
than general) link. Let's see how good you are with data.

--
from
Kim Bolton

Met office lies
 

Kim Bolton wrote in
:

The Russians have criticised the cherry-picking of their extensive
data by the CRU. As an exercise, write an analytical critique of the
this key topic and post it on your web site (with a specific rather
than general) link. Let's see how good you are with data.


Which Russians in particular?

Met office lies
 

harikeo wrote in :

wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad"
wrote:

BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain
the conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs.

The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are
now experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of
'climate' still remains ;)


It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because
we got the same here in Bristol.

Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate.

Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years
observations.

I chuckled when he said this.... does the planet work on 30-year
cycles?


It doesn't - 30 years is the period generally considered neccessary to give
a statistically significant result. See here for a good discussion -

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/

Met office lies
 

abelard wrote in
:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:47:21 GMT, Andrew Adams
wrote:

Kim Bolton wrote in
m:

The Russians have criticised the cherry-picking of their extensive
data by the CRU. As an exercise, write an analytical critique of the
this key topic and post it on your web site (with a specific rather
than general) link. Let's see how good you are with data.


Which Russians in particular?

lysenko?


Ha ha, yes it might as well have been.

Met office lies
 

Kim Bolton wrote:

abelard wrote:

you don't answer questions...you don't ask questions..

I gave you a perfectly good methodology of processing tree-ring data.

I believe from your reply to that that you don't have the numeracy to
understand it, or the science to apply it.

Your only reply was an ad hominem.

your normal mode of behaviour is to repeat back whatever i
have recently posted....

But you post rubbish - lists of cut and paste, badly linked and
completely unanalysed - and portray that as authoritative.

then followed by some immature and meaningless comments

Get your web site in order by adding analysis to your cut and paste,
and providing specific links rather than "it's in IPCC3".

The Russians have criticised the cherry-picking of their extensive
data by the CRU. As an exercise, write an analytical critique of the
this key topic and post it on your web site (with a specific rather
than general) link. Let's see how good you are with data.

FYI

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....09/12/iea1.pdf

Data link:

http://meteo.ru/climate/sp_clim.php

HTH

--
from
Kim Bolton

Met office lies
 

Andrew Adams wrote:
harikeo wrote in :

wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad"
wrote:

BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain
the conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs.

The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are
now experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of
'climate' still remains ;)

It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because
we got the same here in Bristol.

Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate.

Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years
observations.
I chuckled when he said this.... does the planet work on 30-year
cycles?


It doesn't - 30 years is the period generally considered neccessary to give
a statistically significant result. See here for a good discussion -

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/

Wooosh

Met office lies
 

Kim Bolton wrote:
Kim Bolton wrote:

abelard wrote:

you don't answer questions...you don't ask questions..
I gave you a perfectly good methodology of processing tree-ring data.

I believe from your reply to that that you don't have the numeracy to
understand it, or the science to apply it.

Your only reply was an ad hominem.

your normal mode of behaviour is to repeat back whatever i
have recently posted....
But you post rubbish - lists of cut and paste, badly linked and
completely unanalysed - and portray that as authoritative.

then followed by some immature and meaningless comments
Get your web site in order by adding analysis to your cut and paste,
and providing specific links rather than "it's in IPCC3".

The Russians have criticised the cherry-picking of their extensive
data by the CRU. As an exercise, write an analytical critique of the
this key topic and post it on your web site (with a specific rather
than general) link. Let's see how good you are with data.

FYI

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....09/12/iea1.pdf

Data link:

http://meteo.ru/climate/sp_clim.php

HTH


But check this too:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...=Google+Reader

James

--
James Hammerton,
http://jhammerton.wordpress.org/
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/

Met office lies
 

James Hammerton wrote:

Kim Bolton wrote:
Kim Bolton wrote:

abelard wrote:

you don't answer questions...you don't ask questions..
I gave you a perfectly good methodology of processing tree-ring data.

I believe from your reply to that that you don't have the numeracy to
understand it, or the science to apply it.

Your only reply was an ad hominem.

your normal mode of behaviour is to repeat back whatever i
have recently posted....
But you post rubbish - lists of cut and paste, badly linked and
completely unanalysed - and portray that as authoritative.

then followed by some immature and meaningless comments
Get your web site in order by adding analysis to your cut and paste,
and providing specific links rather than "it's in IPCC3".

The Russians have criticised the cherry-picking of their extensive
data by the CRU. As an exercise, write an analytical critique of the
this key topic and post it on your web site (with a specific rather
than general) link. Let's see how good you are with data.

FYI

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....09/12/iea1.pdf

Data link:

http://meteo.ru/climate/sp_clim.php

HTH

But check this too:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...=Google+Reader

James

Fascinating.

I look forward to abelard's analysis of the topic, rather than his
cut-and-paste.


--
from
Kim Bolton