In response to:

Liberals Have All The Answers, But Their Answers Aren't Actually True

SD3 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 9:50 AM
You don't have to sample at every possible location to compute an average with a high probability. Unless you the temperature effect of climate change (or lack thereof) is distributed in a non-random way, there is no statistical reason why measuring temperatures over time at, say, 5000 randomly chosen locations wouldn't yield a highly confident average temperature timeline. The real point that you should be making is not that the statistic is doubtful (it's not), but that it is erroneous to infer major changes in climate (that we know from history happen over thousands of years) from a sample statistic of a hundred years. It is like saying that the insulation in my house is getting poorer because the temp fell between 8 and 9am.
Kenneth439 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 5:30 PM
What is fascinating is to consider actual facts. The government has taken the temperature of water flowing past Niagara Falls every day for over the past 150 years or so and although it varies, there is no long term trend. So liberals, time to believe your own measurements!?
Consider also that the person who knows more about weather than most everyone else is the Weather Channel's Joe Bastardi who when asked about Al Gore's "Sandy" comments merely said, "Gore is stupid!"

Moonbat Exterminator wrote: JR, your assertion that computing a single number for the average temperature of the planet is mathematically impossible is incorrect. It would in fact be a simple, straightforward calculation. In statistics, it's called the mean of sampling means. The weakness of such a statistic is that the enormous variability in the data far exceeds the variability in that number. Even the 90 % confidence interval would be much larger than the variations in that average, making it useless from a practical standpoint. - Al Gore Warming

Dear Moon,

I think we are talking about two different things,...