Re:To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting
by timr on Friday October 18, 2013 @01:58AM
(#6569996)
Ok, so you're citing three pictures on a blog. I guess I'm supposed to be 300% more convinced?
But seriously: you're cherry picking one set of mean global temperature data, to dispute one graph in one IPCC report, for one line of evidence (of many). And your argument isn't rigorous or statistical -- some guy hand-drew some lines over the graphs, and asserts that it doesn't fit the data, even though the observed data lands pretty cleanly in the range of the models. And even if the models are off here, it doesn't invalidate the hypothesis of AGW. You can't win, even if you make a good argument here.
The reason nobody but climate denialists read these arguments is because they're pedantic and facile, not because there's a vast scientific conspiracy against you.
But seriously: you're cherry picking one set of mean global temperature data, to dispute one graph in one IPCC report, for one line of evidence (of many). And your argument isn't rigorous or statistical -- some guy hand-drew some lines over the graphs, and asserts that it doesn't fit the data, even though the observed data lands pretty cleanly in the range of the models. And even if the models are off here, it doesn't invalidate the hypothesis of AGW. You can't win, even if you make a good argument here.
The reason nobody but climate denialists read these arguments is because they're pedantic and facile, not because there's a vast scientific conspiracy against you.