/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9108777
You should read up on Kuhn.
>>9109705
>The point appears to be that climatologists have "cooked the books" in order to create global warming, since there is a difference between satellite and thermometer data. But this makes no sense since the satellite data clearly shows a similar warming trend. Why would climatologists need to "cook the books" then?
Climate people can only make the data fit their narrative after applying adjustments to them. We have seen that they are willing to fiddle any data in the climategate emails.
>The article you linked contains this utterly misleading graph and several like it.
That would be an affirmative.
>Care to actually respond to the fact that the graph you posted is improperly baselined and cherrypicked?
In order to prevent poor baselining or cherrypicking, one needs to take millions of years of reliable and accurate data to obtain a truthful and honest plot. This is simply impossible. Any temperature plot can be accused of cherrypicking or weak baseline. Its child's play to yell: "No LIA, no 40s cooling, you left out MWP, El Nino!"
>Or is that just the modus operandi of your ilk?
Let us look at the modus operandi of key climate scientists like Phil Jones instead.
>Is a conspiracy theory created wholly by taking quotes out of context:
And then comes a link littered with pathetic excuses to exonerate a couple of heinous charlatans. It read like some blockhead is attempting to tell you bananas are straight. It is exceptionally poor damage control.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
>My argument was what Snopes said about it, you obtuse moron, which you STILL have not responded to.
For one peer review is pal review in climate world. For another it is outright lying to claim that adjustments do not consistently cool the past and warm the present.