Alarmist accuses skeptics of confusing correlation and causation. Alarmist owes me a keyboard
I actually “lol’d” when I read this. And then I “lol’d” more. And then I “lol’d” some more while drinking from my coffee cup.
Once again, I found myself intrigued by a recent post at the Conversation. How David Beckham caused global warming: the Man U climate model. At first, I took it for yet another spoof like the “pirate attacks” or “U.S. postal rate” graphs.
But then I remembered where I was. I actually read a piece about an alarmist accusing skeptics of confusing correlation with causation. No, really. Then, something even funnier happened. The author referenced “Myth Busters” in a section of the post titled Real Science. No, I couldn’t have made that one up. But, as I intimated earlier, the best was for last. Continuing in the “Real Science” section, the author references a web site well known to us skeptics, the oxymoronically named blog, Skeptical Science. (They are quite fond of that blog at the Conversation.) The author referenced an idiotic piece about an upward look at the radiation vs a downward look. At any rate. The author’s closing paragraph begins…….
Many “sceptics” project their ignorance onto science, pretending it is only about comparing plots, drawing straight lines through data and that climate is simple.
What does one see today on the front page of SkS?
Apparently, it is much more complex! One must conflate data sets, first. Apply asinine corrections and adjustments. (not to mention literally moving plots in order for them to line up properly) and then draw a straight line! That’s “real climate science”!
Hilarious. As an addendum, I thought I’d show what I’m talking about…… I’ll remove the idiotic adjustments and show the individual graphics that CU, Sks, and the Conversation thinks is “real climate science”. First the T/P graph.
Note a couple of things. Look at the time line where they start using JasonI measurements. 2002. What was the T/P measurement in 2002? 1.5 cm or 15mm above the mean sea-level. It only gets to 25mm after one makes all of the “adjustments”. Let’s look at JasonI.
Notice the start point of JasonI. IT STARTS AT ABOUT 105MM!!! For you loons out there, if one applies all of the adjustments that CU did, the start point is 110mm. Somehow, they magically just pulled down the JasonI data set to meet T/P. They end JasonI’s plot at 2008. (When JasonII came online.) Finally let’s look at JasonII.
lol, it starts at 190mm. And so they dropped it 80mm to make it meet JasonI! Lastly, and just for fun, let’s look at the satellite that they all want to ignore. Envisat……..
All individual graphs were retrieved from http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/
Moronic, idiotic, data conflating, arbitrary adjusting, measurement moving embarrassment to U.S. educational system graph was retrieved from http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
suyts space 
The problem is not really that they collect such data but how they manipulate it and probably the cost. So for most people the noise as in the waves or ripples will make much more difference than any particular sea level rise and then when you add in tides I think no reason to panic. What is of more worry is places like New Orleans where the land is moving faster than the sea level. I like your title.
Kelly I believe you’re spot on. The seas get big and then the get smaller. Every day, every month, every year. But beyond that they believe we should pay homage to the warming gods…….. else we should panic.
Does any one know how long the Maldives have been drowning and how long will it take for this to be done? I know this sounds calloused, but, really? They’ve been at sea level and sea level has been continuing to rise for nigh on 30 years now. Are they all just climbing trees to hang on? Can the poor bastards hang on for just a few days longer? I’ll show them how to buy dirt and sand to stay above water. Once they convince me the tide won’t wash me away, then I might fly into their new airport.
Constraints of the blog host didn’t allow for me to put the subtitle into the title. But, yes, I thought …. well, it fit well. 😉
But, yes, it has been an amazing conversation there. And, it still continues. It’s a funny lot. The put much weight into qualifications…… until the people with qualifications don’t agree with the majority… then, they declare the person they disagree with as an “unexpert” in the field. Never minding that the person with the posit they support has no better qualifications than the person they declared an unexpert. A physicist declare himself an unexpert……. yet, argued with me about the field he declared himself an unexpert. They’ve no idea how much fun this is for me!