Examination of CRU data suggests no statistically significant warming

[bijou]

Readers may recall this quote from Dr. Phil Jones of CRU, by the BBC:

    Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    A: 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.

A.J. Strata has done some significance tests:

CRU Raw Temp Data Shows No Significant Warming Over Most Of The World

Published by AJStrata at StrataSphere

Bottom Line – Using two back-of-the-envelope tests for significance against the CRU global temperature data I have discovered:

    * 75% of the globe has not seen significant peak warming or cooling changes between the period prior to 1960 and the 2000′s which rise above a 0.5°C threshold, which is well within the CRU’s own stated measurement uncertainties o +/- 1°C or worse.
    * Assuming a peak to peak change (pre 1960 vs 2000′s) should represent a change greater than 20% of the measured temperature range (i.e., if the measured temp range is 10° then a peak-to-peak change of greater than 2° would be considered ‘significant’) 87% the Earth has not experienced significant temperature changes between pre 1960 period and the 2000′s.

So how did I come to this conclusion? If you have the time you can find out by reading below the fold.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/26/examination-of-cru-data-suggests-no-statistically-significant-warming/

[compaqxp]

I don't believe this, it is clearly biased and wrong.

[JohnnyReb]

I don't believe this, it is clearly biased and wrong.

My ass is cold and they're predicting snow for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day....something that hasn't happened here in over 75 years. I hope the weather man is biased and wrong too.

[LC EFA]

I don't believe this, it is clearly biased and wrong.

....and the alarmist tripe usually spouted by the AGW crowd is not ?

[compaqxp]

....and the alarmist tripe usually spouted by the AGW crowd is not ?

It's all biased and wrong. Both sides of this issue are just a ridiculous.

[LC EFA]

It's all biased and wrong. Both sides of this issue are just a ridiculous.

One of those refuse to choose folks eh.

Do you believe that the climate on this planet is a variable, and if so is that being effected by anthropogenic activities.
 

[compaqxp]

One of those refuse to choose folks eh.

Do you believe that the climate on this planet is a variable, and if so is that being effected by anthropogenic activities.
 

Yes I refuse to chose sides with this, but it's not a issue I care about.

And to answer your questions yes and no respectively. Of course by answering I've basically put myself in one of those sides of the issue.

[LC EFA]

Yes I refuse to chose sides with this, but it's not a issue I care about.

And to answer your questions yes and no respectively. Of course by answering I've basically put myself in one of those sides of the issue.

See - It wasn't so hard after all.

[Mike220]

Yes I refuse to chose sides with this, but it's not a issue I care about.

And to answer your questions yes and no respectively. Of course by answering I've basically put myself in one of those sides of the issue.

TWEEEEEEEEEEET!

I'm throwing the bullshit flag here.

Not a day or so ago, you posted this

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,52921.msg592290.html#msg592290

I would like to see..

1) Proper Socialized Health Care
2) Some work on Global Warming
3) Obama work on his image so he gets elected again in 2012

And on this thread you stated that you believed that AGW is false.

So which part are you lying about? That AGW is false or you want work on global warming? Because if it's false, there's nothing we can do to work on it. You also state in this thread it's nothing you care about, while at the same time stating it's one of 3 things you want to see worked on in the new year. So again, which is it?

I'm wondering if this is someone's sockpuppet ****ing with us.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

So which part are you lying about? That AGW is false or you want work on global warming? Because if it's false, there's nothing we can do to work on it. You also state in this thread it's nothing you care about, while at the same time stating it's one of 3 things you want to see worked on in the new year. So again, which is it?

I'm wondering if this is someone's sockpuppet ****ing with us.

Ya know...

...for a guy with an over-sized amygdala you're pretty sharp.

[true_blood]

So which part are you lying about? That AGW is false or you want work on global warming? Because if it's false, there's nothing we can do to work on it. You also state in this thread it's nothing you care about, while at the same time stating it's one of 3 things you want to see worked on in the new year. So again, which is it?
I'm wondering if this is someone's sockpuppet ****ing with us.

OH SNAP!
Called out. What say you, compaqxp?!

[Mike220]

Ya know...

...for a guy with an over-sized amygdala you're pretty sharp.

Thanks, I think...

You know what they say. The bigger the better...

[docstew]

Ya know...

...for a guy with an over-sized amygdala you're pretty sharp.

I thought he had an enlarged medulla oblongata... or is that so many teeth and no toothbrush?