Quote:
Originally Posted by Blib27
The quote was a direct and FULL one from a Q&A session conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation in February of last year.
|
What you quoted intentionally distorts and misrepresents what that
BBC interview reported.
Phil Jones said:
Quote:
|
Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods,
|
Curiously, Phil Jones says UT's claims from his only source are statistically insignificant. Jones then provides data that is statistically significant.
Why did you ignore the relevant sentences? Why did you even ignore this:
Quote:
|
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
|
Jones even provided numbers. Why did you ignore his major point to claim something contrary to what he said? BBC did not misrepresent what he said. Only you did that.
Another fact that he stated, that was so relevant, and that you ignored.
Quote:
|
I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
|
Did you not understand the BBC interview? Or not read all details and numbers? Why did you ignore his many important points and numbers while completely misrepresenting one paragraph? You perverted what the BBC reported by misquoting one paragraph and by ignoring relevant numbers.