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

Posted by buckeye_vol

Member since Jul 2014

35252 posts

Posted on 2/11/19 at 8:58 pm to narddogg81

quote:
You don't have to be commiting intentional fraud to be using poor statistical methodology.

I agree. And I think that’s one of the major reason why the predictions have had an upward bias. That being said, they seem to have improved, as they should.

Regardless, I can now see that your points are valid and reasonable. The reason I’m referring to “fraud” is because the thread is titled:

quote:
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

These types of arguments infuriate me because it detracts from reasonable criticism and skepticism, like you presented.

Instead of countering the completely unscientific arguments like “settled science” and “infallible predictions” or the ridiculous doomsday hyperbole, with rational and evidence-based criticisms, we’re resorting to even more ridiculous and unscientific claims of “fraud or hoax.” I believe that this has done only helped the doomsayers and done a disservice to the valid criticism.

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board