or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Amusing and apt, in a way, but note that none of the examples are of scientists misusing statistics. Analysts, bankers, journalists, surveys etc., all get an honorable mention, but no scientists. Which is not particularly surprising because if, as a scientist, one screws up statistical analysis, there is never a shortage of other scientists lining up to point it out.
Skepticism is fine, but bear in mind that those accusations were subjected to multiple independent investigations, all of which concluded that data were not being hidden or manipulated. I see innuendo, but little else, in your reasons to doubt the science. 
 Apologies - I didn't mean to sub-quote your post - my comments were in response to @melgross's general observations. I disagree with your assessment of the state of science in this field, but my specific observations were not directed at you.
I'd settle for physics that we understand first, but I'd be happy to see those too.
I still think fusion will be the future energy source, but I'm afraid that NIF is much further away than you think. They have not yet achieved ignition, just indications of alpha heating, and the reported energy gain only arises from changing the definition of energy input to the capsule.
 I'd argue that it's actually worse than that. The level of attempted projection is really quite staggering. It is clear that many espousing these views do not have even the faintest understanding of science or how it is conducted but, faced with almost unprecedented scientific consensus and no actual counter-evidence, they attempt to portray those who doubt their unsupported counter-assertions as obstinate, dogmatic close-minded and unreasonable - precisely the...
 Right - but by what standard is that a fact? You are claiming as proven that the climate is not warming significantly, and mention 0.5 ˚C as insignificant in historical context. Climatologists will point out that a change of 0.5 ˚C in 100 years is unprecedented - perhaps a factor of 100 times faster than previous warming events. Can you cite even a single climatologist who agrees with your "fact"? You not only disagree with virtually an entire field of science in which...
 There is nothing magical about it. Subsequent comparisons of station data with surrounding areas, principally from satellite measurements, absolutely permit improved normalization of older data. Did you read the referenced paper? Those are certainly not ideal locations, but all locations require some form of normalization in order to use the data in global analysis. And climatologists, quite reasonably, have attempted to include as many diverse data sources as possible if...
I could not find that 2002 figure in the records although it looks at least plausible from a comparison of the published versions of the land-ocean data from that time - do you have a reference for it? But anyway, if you look at the GISS historical analyses, you will see that the historical temperature records have been repeatedly refined over time as new data have allowed better correction and normalization adjustments. Presumably you are aware that the raw station...
However, the year that it exceeds by 0.02 ˚C was 2005. And if you look back pre-2000, only 1998 was within 0.1 ˚C. Prior to that the trend is steep. Maybe the next 10 or so years will provide some more definitive indication of where this is going. Downwards would be very interesting, and throw the field of climate science into all kinds of turmoil, but it does not seem very likely at this point.  I don't know how to begin to address the claim that these data have been...
New Posts  All Forums: