quote:
I want to see all that data plotted. I'm inclined to think that if plotting it out in that way would strengthen the case against objections you would see that graph everywhere.

There are many reputable scientists who have made valid criticisms of the current theory.

Yet, I can’t think of one who has argued that the data itself is fraudulent. They mostly criticize things like causation and predictions, which are far either far harder to support (e.g., causation is arguably the hardest thing to establish in science) or some we’re just terrible at establishing (e.g., we are terrible at predictions).

Fraudulent data would be much easier to identify, and would be far easier to “prove.” So I think the fact that the extremely capable critics haven’t made this claim probably means it’s not a valid claim.

This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 8:39 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by narddogg81

Vancouver

Member since Jan 2012

19713 posts

Posted on 2/11/19 at 8:49 pm to buckeye_vol

quote:
There are many reputable scientists who have made valid criticisms of the current theory.

Yet, I can’t think of one who has argued that the data itself is fraudulent

many have pointed out that the data quality is poor, that surface measurement coverage is completely insufficient especially over the oceans and wide swaths of uninhabited continental interior, and argue with the validity of the practice of inserting modeled data into the data set to substitute for areas where data points are not present or where stations were available in the past but have closed. You don't have to be commiting intentional fraud to be using poor statistical methodology.

This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 8:50 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board