[...] Read the rest… [...]

Whoo hoo, I won! Um what’d I win?

Dig a hole in the ice that goes back 650,000 years. Take samples to test the CO2 level every how many times? 650,000? 65,000? 6,500? 650? 65?

You know how many years it represents. Is one sample every year a better sample than one sample every 10,000 years?

If you test every year for the 650K, which ones do you pick for your project, or do you let each stand alone?

The IPCC used an average for each 1000 years. Which means they can be no closer than 1000 years in their estimate to how CO2 will, or was affected by the change in climate.

IT’S THE SUN STUPID.

Oh, okay. I see what you’re getting at now. Thanks.

@Eric: You win. hehe

@psychochick: I’ll agree that the two time periods are different in length but 15 years cannot be anymore statistically valid then 8 when the entire data set of recorded temperatures goes back 250+ years.

Further, think about what Jones is doing. If he gets 6% of the data validated as statistically significant, then maybe 5% more another time, then so on and so on there will be enough validity to argue the data sets are valid as a whole.

In a way it is genius.

I’ve been reading this blog for years and didn’t just stumble on it.

I wanted to make a comment about Chris’s assertion that not finding the same difference in temp anywhere near statistically significant for both cooling and warming is automatically a lie.

The original comment makes sense to me, since it’s a shorter time period for the cooling that would make it harder to find it statistically valid.

It is quite common to have different treatments with the same numerical result and have one be statistically significant and the other not. It’s one of the aggravations of doing research.

Without going over? Um, one.

Oh Les, exactly how would you know about sugar high and sticky stains? And who’s calling names, I was just blindly projecting a title for a perceived unsubstantiated generalized nomenclature for a demographically androgynous faith in unsubstantiated scientific theory.
Everyone knows the word traitor is just some dead old white dudes ignorant concept of not following the crowd, because in a true democracy, after the majority rules by vote, opposition by anyone is astroturf.

Okay what’s the guess for the first pro-AGW comment from those people that “just happen” to find this post.

Closest in days without going over wins.

I say four days.

Back off, Eric. If Chris wants to get a sugar high from a sippy cup, that’s his business. If he wants to stain the front of his shirt with a sticky substance, who are you to call him names? I think you owe him an apology, before he starts to whine.

Hey, Chris! Look, I stood up for you.

TRAITOR!
Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, or is it defeat from victory, I get that one confused. Anyway, go out and shoot something, have a hobo bbq and smell the sweet sweet odor of a new $100 bill. If that doesn’t work stick a pre-1990 penny in your mouth and taste the capitalism.
Of course you realize there is no return from hippyism. It might make for interesting debate.
Stockholm syndrome is not a pretty way to go, my friend.