/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7094329
I didn't assume that the financial figures weren't inflation adjusted. I read the caption which your picture so conveniently excluded, amigo. It said "Science budget in millions of US dollars". Not "millions of 2011 US dollars", just "millions of US dollars". I'm giving Ms. Palmer and Nature the benefit of the doubt and assuming that the article she wrote and they published had its captions correctly written.
You're ignoring the major point, the 56% increase aside, that the graph did not say remotely what you said it did. You claimed that government funding for climate change had doubled over the time period in question. In fact, government funding for science OF ANY SORT doubled. Because the version of the figure you posted had had the caption cropped out, you didn't know this. And so you were caught in an extremely dumb lie and decided to gloss over it by poking fun at me for getting terse with you. Well done! I'm sure nobody noticed the whole 'lie' bit now that you've accused me of getting mad and not using facts.

As for the other issue, I'm not getting into the methodology of adjusting historical readings. I'm commenting on the ethics of adjusting them in the first place. You accused climatologists of "rewrit[ing] the past" because they adjusted temperature readings, and then proceeded to advocate for adjustments based on similar grounds.
You seem to be against these adjustments when it means that the evidence goes against your viewpoint and for them when they are in agreement with your opinions.

I eagerly await your next post talking about how I don't have any facts or logic and am just calling you names, but curiously failing to address any of the lines of argument expressed in this post.