Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.

  It isn't since it's only over a 10 year time span.  Now going back 100
years the increase is .74'C which is way outside the normal range of climate
variability.

Out sided the range of normal climate variation? What nonsense is

On May 8, 2:18 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"

Just... at (no spam) ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:

Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.

It isn't since it's only over a 10 year time span. Now going back 100
years the increase is .74'C which is way outside the normal range of climate
variability.

Out sided the range of normal climate variation? What nonsense is
this! How do you explain dinosaur bones in now frozen regions. It was
hotter back then and so your assertion is _proven_ false.

On May 14, 6:14 pm, More_Flaps <Morefl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On May 8, 2:18 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"

Just... at (no spam) ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:

 Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.

  It isn't since it's only over a 10 year time span.  Now going back 100
years the increase is .74'C which is way outside the normal range of climate
variability.

Out sided the range of normal climate variation? What nonsense is
this! How do you explain dinosaur bones in now frozen regions. It was
hotter back then and so your assertion is _proven_ false.

That's pretty illucid. You've got to be pulling our chain, nobody
could be that dumb. Are the babes hot at bible college, or what?

On May 15, 11:44 am, kT <cos... at (no spam) lifeform.org> wrote:



On May 14, 6:14 pm, More_Flaps <Morefl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On May 8, 2:18 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"

Just... at (no spam) ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:

Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.

It isn't since it's only over a 10 year time span. Now going back 100
years the increase is .74'C which is way outside the normal range of climate
variability.

Out sided the range of normal climate variation? What nonsense is
this! How do you explain dinosaur bones in now frozen regions. It was
hotter back then and so your assertion is _proven_ false.

That's pretty illucid. You've got to be pulling our chain, nobody
could be that dumb. Are the babes hot at bible college, or what?

I state a fact and you launch into an ad hominem. So, you admit I'm
right!

John, as I said, by now everybody is aware that you have no statistical
knowledge - if you did, you would have made use of it.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

That was a joke, man - this guy, John, even if he does not konw
statistics is at least intelligent. You on the other hand ... well ...NOT

Still no math. Let me help you: x_t is a time series ...

Guess you missed it amongst all the other detritus you scattered around
trying to persuade us you alone understand how statistical analysis
should be performed.

No, you never gave any mathematics behind your best buy.

So I'll tell the world just once more. IMO the methodology needed for a
time series containing large amounts of "noise" is to examine trends for
ALL periods of ALL intervals > 2 units. In this way one will see the
overlapping trends for a period beginning to line up with the regression
for the whole series as the interval increases.

Still no math. Let me help you: x_t is a time series ... please continue.
Tell me exactyly what you do with the samples. Write it down - it should
be simple. For example you could use something like delta=x_2002-x_2000.
Tell me what you do with the differences. So far you have just rephrased
what the programmer wrote in his blog.

Have a look at any standard textbook on time series analysis - use
mathematical notation. Find some of the simpler methods like
autoregressive methods (which of course cannot be applied here) and see
how much can you say about them and how they are described - do something
similar to this.

This is the method outlined by mathematician Dr. Chu-Carroll

by programmer Dr. Chu-Carrol> in his
mathematically orientated blog

in his blog presenting his personal opinions on a variety of topics

, to which I drew attention some days ago.
He probably coined the phrase "periodic trending" for it,

So this method actually does not exist - it's just differentiation plus
plotting - not a time series analysis method that can give any
quantifiable results.> but all
neologism starts somewhere.

most of them never make it

I considered it the "best buy" because it does not rely on parametric
methods.

Because it's just plotting - you never get as far as parameter estimation
or probability estimation.

Indeed, a standard non-parametric procedure can handily be used
on a related collection of trends, to obtain an overall regression line
for the series. Significance of the slope can also be found. (Kendall,
M.G. and Gibbons, J.D. 1990 "Rank Correlation Methods" Arnold, London.)

So do you want to find the regression LINE or not? And what do you want
to do with Kendall's nonparametric correlation? What does this 1948 book
have to do with the discussed problem? Do you calculate any correlations
in your "best buy"? Do you find its siginficance? Please explain.

The best bit - no Q-Q plots, Shapiro-Wilk or Lilliefors tests, no Box-
Cox or ACE transforming when those tests spit out the bad news, etc.,
etc. Forget R. Just good old Russian-astronaut-style pencil and paper
needed.

Fine! Let's do this! Let's discuss some mathematics pencil-and-paper
style! Start with the mathematical description of your best buy method! I
would really love to discuss some mathematics with you more formally.

rather than writing countless pages about why you will not do it, and
more recently, about myself (thank you for this). In fact I could be
liar, rapist and war criminal, but it STILL would not change the fact
that you know squat.

You forgot paedophile and terrorist - do you have something against
them?

no, nothing - just forgot

John, as I said, by now everybody is aware that you have no statistical
knowledge - if you did, you would have made use of it.

Use it on Usenet. Do me a favour. I save it for more serious things. You
didn't mention whether you had decided who I am yet, so I guess you
didn't see any papers of mine that made it online.

I can see your signature, but I don't know who you are, I don't know what
you do. I am not as obsessed with you as you are obsessed with me, so I'm
not going to spend hours researching some "john_howard_morgan" - nothing
of substance is easily accessible. But I would gladly read some of your
articles - I could see if they have anything to do with mathematics.
Please post some links.

Your attempts to
save face have failed, because at the end of the day you have to make
good on you words and actually provide the mathematical details, which
you haven't done.

Still waiting for it, though

So now you have it.

No, still waiting ...

Except, of course, as the ever blinkered denialist,
you won't accept it, will you?

That's a very convenient way of getting out of trouble. BUT - no
mathematics - sorry, can't accept it.

You'll continue to use duff statistics to "prove" the planet is cooling
down

Never said this - you should know, as you have read all my messages at
least 5 times.
, that CO2 has stopped making the oceans acidic,
never said this> that the Montreal
protocol failed to close the ozone hole,
never said this
that acid rain never happened
so power station SO2 scrubbers were a waste of space...
never said this
the list is
endless.

Yes, the list of the things I never said is indeed endless ...
I might say some of the things above, though

Thankfully your head-banger's brigade is too small to make much
impact on the way the world now sees potential climate problems down the
road.

Still waiting for the mathematical description of your method. Note that
from the very beginning I asked you for a MATHEMATICAL descirption of
your method - not just a bunch of stories and analogies. I'm not changing
my tune - just write it down (if you can).

On May 8, 2:18 pm, "V-for-Vendicar" wrote:

It isn't since it's only over a 10 year time span. Now going back 100
years the increase is .74'C which is way outside the normal range of
climate
variability.

"More_Flaps" <Morefl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote

Out sided the range of normal climate variation? What nonsense is this!

Clearly it's something you can't comprehend. Natural climate variability
produces a
temperature fluctuation of about .5'C max. Analysis of the recent past
shows this quite nicely.

Sorry to disappoint you farm boy.

"More_Flaps" <Morefl... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote

How do you explain dinosaur bones in now frozen regions.

God put them there to keep you stupid.

It isn't since it's only over a 10 year time span. Now going back 100
years the increase is .74'C which is way outside the normal range of
climate
variability.

Out sided the range of normal climate variation? What nonsense is this!

How do you explain dinosaur bones in now frozen regions.

I state a fact and you launch into an ad hominem. So, you admit I'm right!

The best bit - no Q-Q plots, Shapiro-Wilk or Lilliefors tests, no
Box- Cox or ACE transforming when those tests spit out the bad news,
etc., etc. Forget R. Just good old Russian-astronaut-style pencil and
paper needed.

Fine! Let's do this! Let's discuss some mathematics pencil-and-paper
style! Start with the mathematical description of your best buy method!
I would really love to discuss some mathematics with you more formally.

I have no interest in doing so. I am a consumer of statistics, relying
on statisticians to create robust methodology that I can thoroughly
understand and hence use to solve a given problem.
Maybe you have no interest, but first and foremost you have no skill to

You forgot paedophile and terrorist - do you have something against
them?

no, nothing - just forgot

Got nothing against paedophiles! You must be working for the Vatican,
re-assigning priests around the world )
You saw right through me ...
But I would gladly read some
of your articles - I could see if they have anything to do with
mathematics. Please post some links.

After you. Start with your full name and address, bank a/c details,
credit card PIN ...... need I go on? You get the picture!
Ooops! you almost got me there! I was just about to reveal who I am and

Yes, the list of the things I never said is indeed endless ... I might
say some of the things above, though

My apologies. It's clearly not apparent that I was writing collectively
about denialists. However, I see you can identify with them on some
things, so perhaps you could clarify.
I could, but I don't want to. This would change the subject. We could

Still waiting for the mathematical description of your method. Note
that from the very beginning I asked you for a MATHEMATICAL descirption
of your method - not just a bunch of stories and analogies. I'm not
changing my tune - just write it down (if you can).

Why should I. The general description of how to perform an analysis to
indicate if a particular climate variable correlates significantly with
time is very clear, even to someone of limited competence in statistics
- myself for example.
Appreciate your saying this.

It is seen both in my posts and the information
given in the "Good Math, Bad Math" blog. No readers have demanded a full
and rigorous mathematical treatment here on alt.g-w. - apart from you!
The scenario sketched out by the URL posted by kT on this thread seems
to fit you rather too closely. As you hide behind a pseudonym I cannot
reference your work, though you are at liberty to reference mine.
So, my main flaw is my pseudonym. I try to explain why you should give

The fact that you do not appear to have access to the 5th edition (1990)
of Kendall and Gibbons is doubtless one of the problems of a country
emerging from behind the Iron Curtain, and not because of deviousness on
your part
Actually, we have the new editions rather than the old ones. Our

The "Robust Line Fit" is what you need to look for and
here, I suspect, Google will be your friend. Here's a simple one with a
straightforward, short, math description which you so crave:

http://www.aiha.org/aihce01/handouts/pf113esmen/sld015.htm

to get you started, so to speak.
Ha! bluffing again! Kendall's robust regression has nothing to do with

John M. wrote:
On May 15, 11:22 pm, zdzis1 <zdz... at (no spam) 31.pl> wrote:

snip of less relevant text

John, I demand a mathematical explanation because you are a fraud and I
want it to be clear to everyone. If someone ever researches you as
thoroughly as you have researched me they will come accross this
discussion and I want them to be perfectly clear that all you do while
talking about statistics and mathematics is just bluffing. You pretend to
know statistics, you criticize others, suggest others learn statistics
before they talk to you (look how cocky you were at the beginning of our
discussion) when in fact you know nothing and are unable to do any
statistical analysis yourself. You use big words and fancy terms you most
obviously do not understand - and THIS is why I keep asking you about
mathematical treatment. You claimed you could do it, so I called your
bluff. The truth is that there is no METHOD called "periodic trending
samples" - it is just your programmer friend's way of plotting. THERE IS
NO MATHEMATICAL TREATMENT for you to copy and paste, but if you knew
mathematical statistics (which you suggest in your first post in this
discussion)

I think you refer to where I wrote:
"Nope. If you knew the mathematical statistics behind data anlysis you
wouldn't be messing with regression on single slices of the data. The
best buy procedure is to take periodic trending samples over the whole
range of available years."

The key word is "you". It does not imply I know the mathematical
statistics.

You are implying that you know mathematical statistics by saying that I
don't.

You have to know something to be able to tell whether someone else
knows it. Look back to our discussion - look how many times you lied or
bluffed! I called every single instance, so you should have no trouble.

What I do know is that "cherry picking" bits of a time
series is wrong,

which is what I was pointing to M-for-Moron, giving him one of the reasons
why it is wrong. I was the one telling M-f-M and also Coppock in another
thread that you can't cherry-pick data, even for technical reasons. You
just butted in to show off your non-existent knowledge.

and that point is highlighted by the blog I drew
attention to. You would have known this too if you were what you
claim, but your divergences away from the heart of the issue down the
line of posts shows that you are just another con artist on Usenet.

Then call MY bluffs! I just wanted to expose your strategy - and I did.

Trying to reflect your own personality onto me won't cut the mustard.
I know my own abilities and limitations, thank you.

you would know this (maybe not right away, but after some
research), and you would be able to put together at least a more formal
description of the procedure, even if mathematical theory does not exist.

You said you were retired which means you have been around longer than I
have. Aren't you ashamed that at your age you STILL pretend to be someone
who you are not?

All your straw-clutching and ad hominem doesn't faze me in the least.
You say you desperately want to discuss the mathematics involved in
time series analysis. I see right through you by simply noting that
you have never, ever, posted to sci.math, alt.sci.math.statistics or,
indeed, any other groups with a mathematical or statistical flavour.
A fraud like you would be spotted straight away in such groups.

As you have cleverly noticed I use a pseudonym. You wouldn't know if I have
posted anything to those groups because I would never use the same nick for
writing to science groups and to crackpot-infested groups.

And even if I haven't written anything, even if I am a liar, terrorist, war
criminal, paedophile and rapist it would STILL not change the fact that you
know squat and bluff all the time.

I wouldn't play poker if I were you. Not with your bluffing skills.

A fairly trivial game.

See, you suggest that you are a great poker player - in fact it's trivial
for you - you can't help it - you are a bluffer.

I play bridge (Oh! ... and Blackjack )

Yeah - and you are probably the best in the world.

Let me say it once again

YOU ARE A FRAUD

John M. wrote:
On May 15, 11:22 pm, zdzis1 <zdz... at (no spam) 31.pl> wrote:

snip

But I would gladly read some
of your articles - I could see if they have anything to do
with
mathematics. Please post some links.

After you. Start with your full name and address, bank a/c
etails,
credit card PIN ...... need I go on? You get the picture!

Ooops! you almost got me there! I was just about to reveal ho I
am and
where I live, but then I remembered that you (and I quote)
"don't give a
flying fuck" who I am. Anyway, you suggested I read your papers,
and I
would like to do so - this is why I asked you for links.

Links posted on Usenet to material that holds my address and
addy. In
your dreams, pal. Use a search engine.

As for me, I
don't give a flying fuck if you read anything that I have
written.

Never published, eh? It figures.

Maybe I did, maybe I didn't

fraud.

As you haven't bothered to read anything I published, you are hardly
in a position to say that. Unless it is as I always believed, you're
here for the flaming - like Ray Lopez, who freely admits to such.