posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by randomtangentsrme
Unless something has changed recently, global warming stalled over a decade ago. It's just been very under reported while the political campaign to
end global warming has continued. Also, unless something has changed recently, since many other planets and some moons in our solar system have been
shown to have warmed about the same amount, it's perhaps time to look at the huge bright furnace in the sky. For anyone who doubts, just start
looking up the reports on temperature trends on Mars, etc. Oh yeahs, they "explain" it away with "special" cases for each, but when it's
everywhere, simultaneously, and consistent those special cases explanations are probably total hogwash.
I don't know if it is general practice or not, but there was a report fairly recently that the temperatures in the countryside have been adjusted to
be more consistent with temperature trends in cities. I know at least one set of tree-ring temperature trends (bristlecone pines) in the US were
dismissed except for a few percent which agreed with preconceived notions. Also, at least one climate study I followed was clearly reporting biased
results, if one would even begin to believe such crude simulations. They would start runs several years before the present and stop any run which did
not match the present "trend" well enough. This imposes a strong bias on the results and is an extremely poor practice in use of simulation data.
Either the simulator works and represents what is possible, or it doesn't. You use all the results, not just the ones you like, Many of those runs
which were tossed showed cooling, not warming. They never get seen in the data or conclusions presented to the public.
There's nothing quite like choosing and picking your data to support the results you want. Whether or not there is warming, cooling or otherwise is
not my issue with what is going on. My issue is not with global warming per se, it's with biased data and biased analyses by people who may get
more funding if they report results a particular way. I also have serious issues with anyone who does not separate the analysis from the
interpretation. Interpretation of a result can be badly influenced by a whole host of motivations. Data analysis should be technical and the
admissible conclusions, with assumptions, should be able to be clearly stated.
Consensus is not science and has no place in science. The oft repeated saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinay evidence is also total
hogwash. The data and the analysis is the data and the analysis, point at what is wrong with the methodology. Opinions, even from "experts," are
just opinions as are their interpretations. Any opinion can be weighed against the evidence, what one wishes to believe is not science either --
it's nothing more than a personal belief.