flacaltenn
Diamond Member
And no. I'm interested only in the science here. Not in your pleasuring yourself by pitting members against each other
If you're interested in the science you should be correcting the science deniers rather than trying to attack my defense of science and scientists.
The thing is, that they don't deserve, or merit any defense at all...they are doing nothing more than pushing a political alarmist agenda.
Here is a perfect example of the degree of dishonesty they are engaging in..This is the typical temperature chart you see from climate science covering the past century.. Even if we assume that it is accurate which I question, it's format is designed for one purpose..and one purpose only. It is designed to create a sense of unease, and urgency regarding the global temperature. The scaling, and the fact that the temperature is shown in terms of anomaly, rather than actual degrees of temperature serves no purpose other than to create anxiety.
View attachment 274514
The graph below describes the same temperature change as the one above, but the sole purpose of the one below is to impart information about the amount and rate that the temperature has changed since 1900. Clearly this graph would not create a sense of anxiety, or alarm in anyone even though it shows the same information.
The graph above.....the graph below. Both show the same information...one is designed specifically to create a sense of urgency and alarm..one is designed to impart scientific information...One is patently dishonest in its intent...can you guess which one that might be?
Ah.. The science of perverting graphs.. I know it well... Problem is -- folks who READ graphs don't fall for the camouflage like National Review does....