Climate Change, page-387

Because if it was a calculated statistically significant number, he would know how important that would be to mention it! Then his claims might hold some merit! Instead, he relies solely on a graph that to him looks statistically significant but until you actually do some calculations, you can't say that it is statistically significant.

I'm merely saying that I doubt thar he has done those calculations because if he did, or if those calculations had been done, you would mention it


Malcolm Roberts claims to be a man of science. He should know that if he wanted to make his claims sound more substantiated, he could say "this is a statistically significant increase in excess deaths, I calculated the statistical significance to P < 0.05" (or < 0.01 or whatever significance value he wanted).

Again, it appears he is saying something is statistically significant based on a trend line, not a calculated number. This is what true scepticism is. Not just merely accepting his claim, but questioning and investigating.