Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
has the Met office lost the plot? | United Kingdom | |||
Orchid Festival - Guess who I met? | Orchid Photos | |||
"He met with terrorists? Oh, that's good." | Gardening | |||
lies about WMD, lies about the greenhouse effect | sci.agriculture |