Only three days left to save The Earth

My question is why are you making a claim using a smaller data set instead of a larger one?

 

We don't have any datasets older than the 70's unless you resort to proxies that are fraught with problems and are guesses at best or in the case with older temperature records by thermometer, problems with urban heat.

 

Exactly. Discount what does not support your conclusion. I just wonder why you refuse to use the larger data set in favor of the smaller, then accuse me of doing what you yourself are doing.

 

For one, the best and most accurate datasets we have are the satellite records. They show no warming.

 

Of course. Only use the data that supports your position. I am not arguing with you, I applaud you for holding others up to a standard that you are failing to live up to yourself.

 

Why would you prefer more sketchy data over the best available unless you were trying to prove your bias?

 

The data has been collecting for N>100 & N<300.

 

Oh, your data is superlative because you say so?

Nah, I think it is more important to keep an open mind and use all factors available, not just the ones that support a predetermined conclusion.

 

So you think the satellite data is less accurate than the data that has higher uncertainty.

 

Do I? Interesting.

I think it is amusing when folks cherry pick data, as you did, then criticize others for cherry picking data, as you did.

 

You mean you think that cherry picking means using the most accurate data. Got it.

 

Yes, cherry picking. I am glad we have finally agreed that is what you have done.

 

I would stop now if I were you.

 

Would you? Not sure what i should stop. What have I been incorrect on in this thread?

 

You will never know even if it is pointed out to you because, well, it has already been pointed out to you.

 

Point it out again.

Please tell the world where in this thread I have been factually incorrect.

 

I think you already have, 'in this thread' pretty much covers it.

 

No, what post was I factually incorrect? Point it out. Do it. tell me where I was wrong. You say I was, and yet I see nothing that would indicate that and you are failing to articulate where it was, so either concede or point it out.

 

You can't explain an elephant to a blind man so he can see it.

 

What post was I wrong. Don't sit there and say I was. Prove it. Prove your point. prove you can back up your accusation. What post number was I wrong in and what was I wrong about?

You can say, right? You did accuse me of it, and certainly you can back up your accusation , right? You are not just making things up, right?

 

dude, really? give it up, you are losing the battle.

 

On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years.

For UAH: Since March 1996: CI from -0.001 to 2.341
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.015 to 1.821
For Hadcrut4: Since November 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.184
For Hadsst3: Since August 1994: CI from -0.014 to 1.666
For GISS: Since October 1997: CI from -0.002 to 1.249

 

What battle am I losing? In what post was I factually incorrect?

 

dude you're out of ammunition. You're firing blanks. I suggest you reread the thread, you are blinded!!!

 

Can you show exactly why N=1000 is a better reference frame than N=20? You do realize that one can zoom too far out as well as too far in.