To those who don't believe AGW is real

[sasguru]

May I respectfully suggest to the sceptics that they obtain some basic knowledge of the scientific method (which heavily depends on data analysis and statistics) before they post on this thread.
Some of your posts are downright embarassing and I really can't educate you in the basics, much as I'd like to.
Climate science is complex and having a knowledge of .NET or Windows XP or whatever is not an advantage any way.
It gets a liitle tiring to explain a basic concept like random variation over the course of 30 or so posts.

HTH

[DimPrawn]

May I respectfully suggest to the sceptics that they have obtain some basic knowledge of the scientific method (which heavily depends on data analysis and statistics) before they post on this thread.
Some of your posts are downright embarassing and I really can't educate you in the basics, much as I'd like to.
Climate science is complex and having a knowledge of .NET or Windows XP or whatever is not an advantage any way.
It gets a liitle tiring to explain a basic concept like random variation over the course of 30 or so posts.

HTH

Sorry oh wise one. I'll stick to Drag 'N' Drop and invoicing.

Where's the "we're not worthy" smiley?

[Bob Dalek]

You are andyW and I claim my 5 free sessions with your mum.

Your mum a bit tired-out, then?

[Bob Dalek]

... Their "funding" is usually simply their salaries as university professors....

And not one of 'em is trying like mad to boost their credentials with trashy stats to get more funding? Of course not.

[sasguru]

And not one of 'em is trying like mad to boost their credentials with trashy stats to get more funding? Of course not.

I would have thought that "trashy stats" would more likely lead to withdrawal of funding and loss of professional reputation, eh?
You're really a few stories short of the whole building, aren't you?

[Bob Dalek]

I would have thought that "trashy stats" would more likely lead to withdrawal of funding and loss of professional reputation, eh?
You're really a few stories short of the whole building, aren't you?

I KNEW it!!! You are a fantasist! The world is awash with under-funded departments, and it's hardly novel to hear of them boosting funds with any old rubbish masquerading as research. Especially if 100% in-line with the Big Boys. And double especially if the stats are a Pick 'n' Mix affair like AGW's are.

[Bob Dalek]

I would have thought that "trashy stats" would more likely lead to withdrawal of funding and loss of professional reputation, eh?
You're really a few stories short of the whole building, aren't you?

Storeys

[TimberWolf]

What gets me is that the root cause of global warming barely gets a look-in. Population. Rather than actioning plans to curb population size and growth (through breeding reductions rather than using the old fashion war method) the political (and AGW followers AFAIK) message is to talk about implementing inconsequential reductions in energy usage with stuff like low energy light bulbs and not leaving things on standby. And we continue to import people by the millions. By coincidence though these reductions will be just enough to avert the affects of global warming, I gather. It's a charade. Not having one child would do more to reduce CO2 emissions than anything any single person could do in a lifetime, especially if that child has children, etc. Let's be honest, whether global warming is real or not (it is in my opinion) it has also been hihjacked by others for other (possibly well intended) purposes.

[Bob Dalek]

What gets me is that the root cause of global warming barely gets a look-in. Population. Rather than actioning plans to curb population size and growth (through breeding reductions rather than using the old fashion war method) the political (and AGW followers AFAIK) message is to talk about implementing inconsequential reductions in energy usage with stuff like low energy light bulbs and not leaving things on standby. And we continue to import people by the millions. By coincidence though these reductions will be just enough to avert the affects of global warming, I gather. It's a charade. Not having one child would do more to reduce CO2 emissions than anything any single person could do in a lifetime, especially if that child has children, etc. Let's be honest, whether global warming is real or not (it is in my opinion) it has also been hihjacked by others for other (possibly well intended) purposes.

I agree. But you may as well paint your bum green for all the difference the "Stop having kids" message will ever make.

[Diver]

I agree. But you may as well paint your bum green for all the difference the "Stop having kids" message will ever make.

Compulsory. sterilization for the upper classes

Oh! & chavs