ceteris non paribus
<strong>[corrected formatting – please ignore earlier post]</strong>
You state:
<blockquote>you cannot say that the warming stopped since 2000</blockquote>
adding
<blockquote>the trend is not statistically significant at 12 years.</blockquote>
These are two separate points,CNP
.
The <em>“truth”</em> is <em>“that the warming stopped since the end of 2000″.</em>
The empirical data confirming this <em>“truth”</em> comes from the physical observations of all those thermometer readings all over the world (even those next to AC exhausts, asphalt parking lots, etc.).
Now to the second part: is this lack of warming <em>“statistically significant”</em>?
There is no absolute answer to that question as it is judgmental. Santer tells us we need 17 years (rather than only 12 years) before it is <em>“statistically significant”.</em> Others may conjure up another figure.
But the <em>“truth”</em> is <em>“that the warming stopped since the end of 2000″</em>, whether this fits your (or anyone else’s) definition of being <em>“statistically significant”</em>.
Stated otherwise one could say that <em>"there has been no statistically significant warming since 2000"</em> – do you like this wording better?
Max
↧