Bob wrote:
On 8 Dec, 22:17, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:

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?


What Roger is saying is that you are not going to get a definitive
temperature to 10 decimal places for each year so you can't compare
years like that.

But they are comparing years and are proposing changes that affect people
lives based on flakey evidence.

You have to take into account the statistics of the
data sets and there will be some fluctuations around the broad
trends. This means that one data set may show a different warmest
year from another while still demonstrating the same general trend.

The figures conveniently ignore history.

Roger showed that the data is indeed in general agreement.

General agreement from people who earn their living from being green is
biased.


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