Did the Dunbar amendment about "free enterprise" pass? It's not mentioned. It says she "backed [it]," but not that she was successful. We're left to fill in the blanks.
I guess all those climate change die hards missed Dr. Jones admission that there's not been any evidence of global warming since 1995.
Learn to read:
Q. "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
"This trend is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level". Why do you think the "journalist" asked him this? Because he was prompted by someone who had already done the math and knew that if you cherry-picked the data to include only 1995-2009 it only gave a 94% significant trend. (1994-2009 is over 95%).
that he admitted writing email in discussion trying to avoid producing his data to Freedom of Information requests.
Not his data. Data from many sources, much of which was under NDA's.
poor Dr. Jones just couldn't find his original hockey stick data that made him famous. You know the one that fails to show any Midevil warming period, no mini-ice age.
Uh, Dr Jones is not Michael Mann.
The one that stops right at 1961, and doesn't show -- what the tree ring data -- you know that data that shows the warming and cooling periods since 1961.
The tree ring data from after 1961 is not used because it doesn't match the temperature Simple enough for you?
Those Martians, Jovians, Titans, and Plutonians -- with their SUV's and all -- warming each of those planets during the same period of high solar activity.
There is no evidence that Mars is warming. Trying to work out a trend based on two data points (albedo in 1977 and 1999) is stupid.
Be interesting to see where this leads, even though I think we all know what it'll be.. that is, this just going away, quietly, when nobody's watching. Nothing'll happen.
Of course nothing will happen. All the loonies are crying "no smoke without fire" but all investigations find that not only is there no fire there is no smoke
That won't stop the loonies however, they'll just invent another made up story and try again, claiming that there was a coverup.
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
What's interesting in this case is why did the journalist ask such a specific questions? The answer is that somebody who knows enough about statistics to know how Jones would have to reply handed them the questions to ask.
In other words somebody who knows that the data shows AGW is real but knows how to cherry pick the data to find periods with no statisticaly significant signal prompting the journalists to get quotes that can be used by the deniers.
Nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Did the Dunbar amendment about "free enterprise" pass? It's not mentioned. It says she "backed [it]," but not that she was successful. We're left to fill in the blanks.
Google is your friend: Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change
There is one last chance: the Board of Education will make a final vote on Friday, May 21.
I guess all those climate change die hards missed Dr. Jones admission that there's not been any evidence of global warming since 1995.
Learn to read:
"This trend is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level". Why do you think the "journalist" asked him this? Because he was prompted by someone who had already done the math and knew that if you cherry-picked the data to include only 1995-2009 it only gave a 94% significant trend. (1994-2009 is over 95%).
that he admitted writing email in discussion trying to avoid producing his data to Freedom of Information requests.
Not his data. Data from many sources, much of which was under NDA's.
poor Dr. Jones just couldn't find his original hockey stick data that made him famous. You know the one that fails to show any Midevil warming period, no mini-ice age.
Uh, Dr Jones is not Michael Mann.
The one that stops right at 1961, and doesn't show -- what the tree ring data -- you know that data that shows the warming and cooling periods since 1961.
The tree ring data from after 1961 is not used because it doesn't match the temperature Simple enough for you?
Those Martians, Jovians, Titans, and Plutonians -- with their SUV's and all -- warming each of those planets during the same period of high solar activity.
There is no evidence that Mars is warming. Trying to work out a trend based on two data points (albedo in 1977 and 1999) is stupid.
Of course nothing will happen. All the loonies are crying "no smoke without fire" but all investigations find that not only is there no fire there is no smoke
That won't stop the loonies however, they'll just invent another made up story and try again, claiming that there was a coverup.
He expressly said
What's interesting in this case is why did the journalist ask such a specific questions? The answer is that somebody who knows enough about statistics to know how Jones would have to reply handed them the questions to ask.
In other words somebody who knows that the data shows AGW is real but knows how to cherry pick the data to find periods with no statisticaly significant signal prompting the journalists to get quotes that can be used by the deniers. Nice.