This sort of analysis always makes me chuckle. So I thought I would throw a little kindling on the smoldering nonsense.
This temperature data was taken from the NOAA’s website. The red bars indicate the years that a Republican held the White House and the blue bars indicate the years that a Democrat was seated in the White House. The chart illustrates, for each year since 1880, how the global average temperature that year compared to the average reading over the entire 1900-2000 period. So points above the zero line indicate warmer than average years and points below indicate cooler than average years.
If you were to take the data and look at average temperature deviations for Republican administrations versus Democratic administrations, you would find that the temperatures under Democratic administrations was 0.016 degrees warmer than the average over the entire period, while the temperatures under Republican administrations was 0.006 degrees cooler than the average over the entire period. Yep, Democratic administrations seem to be worse for global warming than Republican ones. It’s what we’d expect right? Remember, the economy performs better when a Democrat is in the White House – one follows from the other, does it not.
By the way, the deviations for the Dems and Reps above are not statistically significant from each other.
funny
Don’t be absurd! Political parties don’t cause global warming one way or another. They have no impact!
Obviously its a decline in the numbers of pirates that is the cause of global warming. See related graph below.
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif
As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
yea, plus CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. isnt that enuff to refute the argument?