Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

You really are displaying an appalling lack of scientific (and in
this particular case mathematical) knowledge. The Met Office in
their wisdom show the 95% confidence limits as well as the actual
figure for each year. If you take 95% to be +/- two standard
deviations then for the 2 to be equal a reduction of 0.3 of a
standard deviation in the higher and an increase of 0.3 in the
lower (or any other combination with the same sum) is all that is
required.

In other words they are fudging the figures.

Two different years - yes or no?

You really are the most ignorant of idiots but do keep on digging. You
are providing a certain level of amusement.

As I said in an earlier post. Don't attempt to patronise me ****wit.

First of all, attacking me instead of my arguments shows how weak yours are.
And I take it you are the official spokesman for the entire group when you
claim I am providing amusement?

Your arrogance is staggering. Only matched by your gullibility.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk