GeoffL
Full Member
- Messages
- 768
Piffle backed by meaningless twaddle! Pretty much like the 'hockey stick' created by alarmists, who massively overemphasised bristle-cone data. As you say, people who use such ludicrously selected data to support their case are demonstrating its weakness, not its strength. Note that I made the same point as you -- that the data Heidi Cullen presented to support her alarmist case was ludicrously selected, thus demonstrating its weakness. Please check out the YT video I linked; you'll note that Cullen had used a carefully selected portion of the data shown in the graph I posted to make her false claims.Piffle backed by meaningless graphs. That chart is of the maximum temperature in July and August in the US. Not a meaningful measure by any stretch of the imagination. There is every likelihood that climate change will reduce peak summer temperatures by increasingly unstable weather.
People who use such ludicrously selected data to support their case are demonstrating its weakness, not its strength.
I'm not a climate scientist. I have to defer to people who have real expertise in the field. I know enough to recognise false arguments, piled on misleadingly selected data to attempt to prove the untrue.
Yes, there are many many people making millions out of fossil fuels, and they are investing some of that into promoting the twaddle you are parroting.
That doesn't make it true.
I'm not a climate scientist, but I recognise neo-religion when I see it and have a healthy-enough scepticism to check on claims on both sides: You might want to do the same ...