But the difference is deltay over delta x. Only someone who is deliberatly confused would use dx/dy to be the derivative of a function vice dy/dx. You really are wrong, here old chap. We are discussing how temp has changed over the decades. that is a difference, son. It might be zero. But it’s not infinite.

I know you’ll never admit it, because I know your kind on the internet. You’d rather get all stuffy about how someone addresses you than concentrate on thinking, on learning, on pursuing truth.

But the end result is just disgusting. If this is the mentality of skeptics, Meyer, I’m very WORRIED. I mean maybe AGW is right, if my fellow skeptics are this rock stupid.

Sorry, pedant…you LOSE.

Now…let’s stop pulling our puds on dipshit crap like this and actually discuss something interesting. Some of the questions raised are fascinating…if we will just move furhter into the issue analysis. But rehashing bullshit sophist points like this is a buzzkill. I definitely expect more from a McKinsey grad. (Of course that place is way overrated anyhow.)

Umm…and I AM a skeptic. And I am helping you. By burning the stupidity and pussy and sophistry out of you. And if at the end of the day, we prove AGW correct or (more likely) some minor skeptic snipe to be off target, well that’s all for the good. Becuase truth is what matters. That’s what Dick Feynman would want. Not morons just following their tribe.

You’ve moved on to failing even more spectacularly, by way of trying to prove yourself right.

(TCO – give us a break. Put an “I hate Al” hat on or something.)

Oh…and if you are for some reason reversing x and y from what everyone in the civilized world uses, please give me an example of how any physical variable (temp) can change simultaneously (have two values at one time)?

Bottom line guys. Stop covering up for crappy science from our side. It embarreses me as a skeptic. Makes me even wonder if that is all there is…just morons on our side.

BTW, my point stands. You (attempted) pedantic fuck. A guy on our skeptic side lacks the logic to understand how a time trend of temp is biased by the correction of an earlier faulty high instrument. Don’t try to protect bad math and bad logic when it gets used by our side. It’s bad math and stupid people regardless. slap the miscreants silly and fucking taunt them until the make pop sounds and pull their heads out of their asses.

Hey Adrian, you fucking little commie lover. I even included differnce for the excluse mongers like you. Eat your shit. Just bite down and eat it.

Gavin? Is that you?

If I may pick a nit: it makes the comparisons more visually useful if all axes are scaled equally. In particular, the vertical temperature scales on each graph are different (45-54 and 45-60) while the time axes are identical. Our natural instinct is to compare the two graphs (visually) to see how the slopes compare.

I’d like to go out on a limb and make a prediction. Our reaction is “it’s so simple that a teenager can do it,” while the AGW mobs will be “it wasn’t performed by a scientist (or more accurately, ‘one of OUR scientists’), so it means nothing.” Or, “where’s the peer review?” Which means “OUR peers did not bless it.”

BTW: does your son accept money from the oil industry?…