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/