Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Simply defined, cherry picking is choosing what suits you. A straight line can suit us I think first and foremost precisely because it is so unnatural: nature seems mostly composed of complex imbrications of cyclical trends.
So? The USA is still only a small area on the globe. It is hardly indicative of GLOBAL temperatures.
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Second Warmest October for Global Temperatures
Cherry picking precisely defined is using portions of data to confirm your position, while ignoring significant portions of data which if included in the analysis would contradict your position.
So how does a regression, using all of the data, become cherry picking? You still haven't answered, what method would you use, and why?
Mea culpa
And the trend is still one of warming:
What value is there in pointing at the last two points of this time series? None whatsoever. If someone pointed at 1912 and said, "Look at that temperature drop. The world must be entering a cooling phase", well then that person would look like an idiot.
No different than what's happened here. Watts is an idiot.
Absolutely not. Consider that scientists arrive at the same conclusions using different methods. The conclusions are called robust if they are validated by multiple appropriate methodologies. The appropriateness of any method depends on many factors. It's rare if ever that there is only one correct method.
I suppose you could say that choosing a method which is inappropriate for what you're trying to show or test, could be cherry picking. But linear regressions for establishing trends in mean surface temperature is not inappropriate. If you think it is, you have to explain why.
I suppose you could say that choosing a method which is inappropriate for what you're trying to show or test, could be cherry picking. But linear regressions for establishing trends in mean surface temperature is not inappropriate. If you think it is, you have to explain why.
I wouldn't go so far as to call David Suzuki an idiot....a business man and an ideologue - yes...but an idiot is a bit of a stretch.
To be able to say something about the appropriateness of any method, we ultimately have to acknowledge the arbitrariness of the hypothesis on which it rests. It will always be possible that the fact that several methods suggest the same conclusion may be due to non-specifiable common hypothesis among these methods (allowing researchers to neglect some variables).
Once upon a time, a very long time ago now, about last Friday, Winnie-the-Pooh lived in a forest all by himself under the name of Sanders. ("What does 'under the name' mean?" asked Christopher Robin. "It means he had the name over the door in gold letters, and lived under it." "Winnie-the-Pooh wasn't quite sure," said Christopher Robin. "Now I am," said a growly voice. "Then I will go on," said I.) One day when he was out walking, he came to an open place in the middle of the forest, and in the middle of this place was a large oak-tree, and, from the top of the tree, there came a loud buzzing-noise. Winnie-the-Pooh sat down at the foot of the tree, put his head between his paws and began to think. First of all he said to himself: "That buzzing-noise means something. You don't get a buzzing-noise like that, just buzzing and buzzing, without its meaning something. If there's a buzzing-noise, somebody's making a buzzing-noise, and the only reason for making a buzzing-noise that I know of is because you're a bee." Then he thought another long time, and said: "And the only reason for being a bee that I know of is making honey." And then he got up, and said: "And the only reason for making honey is so as I can eat it." So he began to climb the tree. He climbed and he climbed and he climbed, and as he climbed he sang a little song to himself. It went like this: Isn't is funny how a bear likes honey? Buzz! Buzz! Buzz! I wonder why he does? Then the ice melted.
The hypothesis is not arbitrary. The hypothesis is what the investigation is based on. The very reason that a result may be due to some uncontrollable or uncontrolled factor is why we use statistics.
I'm a nice guy, so I'll give you one more chance to offer an alternative before I write you off.
I'm a nice guy, so I'll give you one more chance to offer an alternative before I write you off.
The Earth is warming up a little every year (FACT), the glaciers on Kilimanjaro, the U.S. Rockies and in the Alps are almost gone (FACT). Will all this doom and gloom happen, who knows. We survived past global warming and cooling (FACT). Will we survive this one, good chance.
Only now we have a biodiversity crisis on top of that. In past climate changes, humans hadn't developed the agricultural systems we have with us today, and which civilization depends on. So if the future is unfriendly to the species, strains, cultivars, and breeds that we depend on, it's not so much a question of whether or not we survive it, but how well our civilization can cope.
No question about it, the way we live will change, civilization as we know it has to change. North American will probably stop supporting the world's food supply. Wars will become more frequent, and they will be over food and water. But warming will happen no matter what we do and we should prepare for a worse case scenario.
- Status