humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 5, 2:44 am, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:14 pm, TC wrote:

> > 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.

No pretense. The black (average blue) line is data that stand
in proxy for temperature. Biological/chemical data that changes
in response to temperature.
Such proxy data need calibration and the agreement in the
overlap between red and blue shows the degree of calibration.

> 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.

No doubt scientists are busy taking pot shots at teach others
research regarding methods of calibration etc. But just focus
on the overlap of red and blue curves.

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

"If"?

> 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.

That would be red data.
"suppose" noted.

> 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.

The process of going from measured temperatures to
global averages does not involve correcting to desired values.
I say this confidently because if anyone tried to get away with
this they would be torn limb from scientific limb in the literature.

> How the black data is reconciled with the red data is similarly
> flexible.

That would be red versus blue. I'm sure they worked year by
year rather than with averages.

> The choice of reconciliation factors will make it match AGW
> or not match AGW.

The calibration affects far more than AGW. It effects all
paleo estimates of temperature long before there is an
anthro issue. You can't adjust the calibration to fit AGW
preconceptions without doing strange things to temperatures
in the ice ages.

> Again, I am not claiming fraud.

You are exhibiting naivete about science.

Tom