Well among other things there's this:
They have learned the "trick" (which I don't get myself) of adding in a specific series of data -- the real temperature record, but only through 1960 -- to a model based entirely on proxy temperature readings (tree rings and ice cores and so on) and adjusted real-world temperature readings. This data shouldn't be added in -- they've already got their adjusted (i.e., also kinda faked) temperature readings in there. They are adding this one piece of data again, this time in raw form, because it changes how the graph looks at the end, and gives them that sharply-rising flare at the chart's end.
Why not use all real temperature data, through the present day?
Because that doesn't result in the shape of the graph they want.
Why add real temperature data through 1960 in when you've already included "adjusted" versions of that data?
Because if you don't, you don't get the shape of the graph you want.
Why do they want a particular shape of graph? Because these charts aren't being used for science; they're being used for political propaganda. People understand what a sharply-rising line means.
Why are scientists choosing which data to add and not add according to what gives them the results they want?
Because they're not scientists. They are political advocates with some math and science degrees.
And these are the same people that scream "the science is seattled!"
Ahh, gotta love people that will sacrifice ethics and honesty for "the cause".
EDIT: Via VodkaPundit Here's the Climate Science Quiz: Can you figure out the right answer?
No comments:
Post a Comment