You can wipe that geek avatar off your post. Here’s why …
“There, Now I've answered yours.”
Please, most were merely addressed.
“So until you've proven you are able to back your wildass theories up with real thought, real evidence and real truth,”
I’ve quoted relevant text outside of this forum; I’ve given links to such text; I’ve explained my reasoning – which has gone uncountered. Conversely, you’ve not quoted, linked, or offered logical reasoning. You are the blackest pot!
- How does referring to it add to the debate of the flaw of your post of 10th November 2008 14:44 GMT?
Not only did I notice how you didn’t actually answer that question, you somehow conveniently missed the prior one. I can understand how someone acting disingenuously would prefer to conveniently completely drop that question; to answer it would prove the subsequent parts of your post are irrelevant. I shall repeat it:
- Why should I needlessly complicate this debate by bringing something which neither of us has questioned, has reason to dispute, and is irrelevant? (1*)
“And you are talking bollocks in the exact sense of "The Global Cooling Scare whas from scientists" is bollocks.”
Quoth thyself: ” at no point have I disputed the scientific analysis behind global cooling; any suggestion that I did is entirely your own fantasy!” – this statement went uncountered. Prove me wrong, quote the text where I said it came from the scientists; afterall, the unanswered question was:
- "So do you care to say exactly *WHERE* and how was I “talking bollocks”?"
“You have not honestly said you never read it, never honestly retracted the incorrect statement and never honestly answered by questions.”
The only question I’ve not answered is whether I’ve read the papers. To be frank with you, I’m loathed to tell you if I’ve read them because I want to prevent giving you an opportunity to further divert the argument away from your lack of understanding of the issues involved (which you’re already started doing (2)). Regardless, this remains irrelevant and unneeded until you answer the question (1) above.
You’ve tried to twist the meaning of honest; you’ve taken the lack of frankness to be equal to an act of deception, which is of course a non-sequitur. You’ve repeatedly claimed I have lied, so….
- Can you show me where and how I “have lied” ? Can you quote the “incorrect statement” and *explain* how it is incorrect?
“You have lied because you heard a quote somewhere that suits your bias and it was wrong,”
Haa ha haa – let me get this right: I have heard that something was wrong, therefore I lied? Man you are funny! Perhaps you meant to say that I quoted a wrongful statement, which is true, but my explaining how a wrongful statement is indeed wrong does not make me wrong, does it? My only bias is being against disingenuous individuals.
How does one prove something that isn’t there, especially when it is swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason? "You can't.”
THANK YOU! It took a while but we got there.
The question itself is fair and extremely relevant (I will return to this (3)); the only thing dishonest about that question is your previous answer. Your first answer to that exact question was to “average” (10th November 2008 14:44 GMT ) but you had twisted and misquoted the question to suit your answer (remember you replaced the text ‘something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason’ with the very different term “noise”). Now you give a completely different answer to my exact the same question – your new answer of “you can’t” means that your previous answer of “averaging” was indeed wrong. And boom goes the dynamite. Letting the fireworks continue...
Does the length of the sampling period properly cater for the lowest frequency component? "Yes.”
A bold answer, thank you, although it is lacking in any “real thought, real evidence and real truth” (remember those words?).
- How does the length of the sampling period properly cater for the lowest frequency component?
Do you care to tell us how to average out the effects from external influences when their cycle times are orders of magnitude greater than the averaging period " Such as what?”
Such as glacial and interglacial cycles; this should be really easy to guess at by anyone who has read the scientific papers on global cooling, and even by those who haven’t – heck I even gave you a bit of a hint: “Last ice age” – how can you not have realised that?
- Do you care to tell us how to average out the effects from external influences, such as glacial and interglacial cycles, when their cycle times are orders of magnitude greater than the averaging period?
“Because noise is the opposite of signal. Noise is the elements that hide the signal because their cause is unrelated so reducing the correlation unless longer sampling is done.”
Although what you say is correct (and proves your your answer to the earlier question can be wrong), you didn’t actually answer my question. Better yet, your new answer of “you can’t” not fitting with your "average" answer, in response to exactly the same question, demonstrates that “something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason” indeed isn’t the same as “noise”. Therefore, simple logic dictates that the answer to the question: ‘ "How do we get from “something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason”, to “noise”?" ‘ cannot be answered because you cannot substitute the term as you have done.
“Have you read the reports from scientists on the global cooling in the 70's?
How many were there?
What external influence beyond the timescale is not taken into account in GCMs?”
Now for the good bit!
These are beyond what I wanted to discuss (2*), these being your lack of understanding of the application of the averaging process, as well as all this nicely explaining a good reason why there’s “a severe lack of evidence *against* it [AGW]” (your post 6th November 2008 16:57 GMT) – your new answer of “you can’t” accepts that there cannot be such evidence - which was my fundamental point (or agenda as you insist) from the very first word to you (3*) - QED.
If you had given the answer “you can’t” to my sole question to you within my first post, you wouldn’t have been made to look so stupid and disingenuous; at least the whole truth is out now.
Global warming might well be killing lemmings, but you’re the one who wilfully jumped off the cliff!