humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 4, 7:14 pm, TC wrote:

> > > What do you think of when you look at a set of data points
> > > like:http://www.jri.org.uk/resource/images/fig2.jpg
> > > or if the long relatively constant section offends you,
> > > likehttp://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/giss_2005.gif
> > The red lines show a lot of fluctuation with an apparently linear
> > increase. There is no visible increase in slope, at least not as far
> > as I can tell.

> I see you are focusing on the shorter series, without the
> offending constant section.

The offending constant section is constant, not a hockey stick.

> > I presume I'm supposed to be looking at the red line? It's awfully
> > hard to see it clearly with the black line there.
>
> You definitely need practice in looking at data graphs.
>
> > It follows roughly a
> > lightning-bolt pattern (up/down/up) and the second rise seems to more
> > aggressive than the first. There is no straight part. So it does not
> > look even remotely like a hockey stick.
>
> Try the other one:http://www.jri.org.uk/resource/images/fig2.jpg

There's only a hockey stick if you pretend the black line and the red
line are measuring the same thing. They only do so if you accept that
they have been properly "corrected" to do so. The question then
becomes -- with what assumptions were the corrections made.

If the assumption was the very assumptions I dispute, that the data
confirms the very assumptions that created it is not helpful.

For example, suppose you had data from a completely different
thermometer in a completely different part of the world with one
reading for each year. If you use your "best information" about how to
correct these so that they accurately reflect global average
temperature for that year, it's not surprising that the final data
will confirm the assumptions that underlied your "best information".
The input is flexible enough to confirm almost any climate theory.

How the black data is reconciled with the red data is similarly
flexible. The choice of reconciliation factors will make it match AGW
or not match AGW.

Again, I am not claiming fraud.

DS