Quote from: Spendulus on January 07, 2017, 02:13:59 AM

Quote from: dwma on January 07, 2017, 01:24:03 AM

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/

And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.

Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.

I've asked those who claim "correlation" for, duh, the CORRELATION. Which they do claim is so astonishingly positive for those who are believers, at least. Now I've asked for the correlation. Those who made the claim need to support the claim.

Otherwise you/them appear to be resisting showing the validity of the claim made. As if you have a weak or non existent case, and you've been caught in it. As if you've been caught in a lie.

Stop the silliness please. I assume those who claimed the evidence of correlation will show the number that supports fully, partly, or not, their claim. Otherwise this last five to ten posts is yet another piece of evidence of the ducking, dodging and weaseling of politicalized climate science.

In science and engineering, the way this works is very simple.

Q. What is "A"?
A. Oh, of course. "A" is 123.45%.
Q. Thank you. That is <>

Someone gave you links to show you the correlation. You just choose to ignore them from your trait that seems to be bordering on mental illness.

If you want someone to calculate the correlation coefficients you need to give them the datasets. Otherwise you'll have infinite outs. Just like there is always something wrong with the data. (And to be fair, we should question the data.. but not in some weird way that just suits our own personalized biases) Almost all skeptic arguments are based around that.

It makes denial cognitively easy, because this data is very complicated with lots of nuances and places for people to screw up.

Wait, there isn't anything wrong with the data from the guy that all the skeptics cite just take him as the truth! The skeptics never question his motives or even his data. It is clearly you people just have huge cognitive biases.

If you are willing to give me the dataset, pay for my time, I can calculate a coefficient. That means you have to agree on the input. You won't even take that step, let alone pay for my time. So so silly.