It doesn't debunk cherry picking anything. It just claims it didn't cherry pick, but then admits to using a methodology that would invariably return such a result. It's no difference. Heck, I'd argue that is the DEFINITION of cherry picking, when you set out to prove something and ONLY select the data that proves your point and ignore everything else.
I edited this line in, but I will post it for you again here: I love this line from the article too: "The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend." Imagine if I had opened 100 packs recently, and I got 1 exotic per pack except for the last 5 (obviously absurd, but just an illustration), and then I came and told you, "Dude, the system is rigged, I haven't gotten an exotic 5 packs in a row!" Then you might say, "but you got one in the previous 95! What the heck?! Why didn't you include all the packs?" That line in the article would be me respondng in this situation with, "I didn't cherry pick the last 5 packs, I just 'calculated' the longest period without an exotic." Yea. LIKE IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. Of course that year would be "calculated" to be the start given your original intent. It's also the same date that's been used to "debunk" global warming for years. Or a different example. Longest period I have gone without filling up my car. I didn't cherry pick to just after the last time I filled the gas tank. It just so happens to coincidence with that time! Clearly an absurd claim because OF COURSE that'd be the time. This isn't how science works. You don't decide on what you want to prove then go and calculate things until you get what you want. You will almost always find a way to do so.
Personally, I am of the opinion that there is no solution given our current level of technology. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything to prolong our chances of finding those solutions. What pisses me off is when people use data to mislead people.
And yea, the models are being corrected over time as we learn more. This is science. It adapts, it learns. This is why the IPCC and other scientists build models, so we can better understand what is going on. Every time they get new data (whether it agrees with the model or not), those models get updated so we can try to get it right. The fact that the models get updated is a strength (and not the failure you want to paint it as) and is vital to furthering understanding. Unlike the article you linked which chooses an intent (zero trend) and self selects into only the data that proves the point, while ignoring data that might show otherwise. Maybe one day we'll learn that global warming really has stopped - I would have no problem with that, as long as it is actually the case and not just cherry picked data points for an agenda.
The amount of money China is putting into renewable energy is just fancy. I prognosticize that they will overtake everyone else in wind energy capacity ... this year? Next year?
There's work being done on algae plants that glow in the dark, and consume massive amounts of Co2. There is also work being done for solar powered roads.
I think there will be a point in the near future when green energy is the main power generation source, already it is true in a lot of countries. Leaving out transport, Uraguay is 95% green energy from mixed sources (hydro/wind/biomass/solar), and Denmark is up to 40% wind energy. Germany despite being a big, industry heavy, country is powered by 27% renewables and the numbers in countries around the world are rising fast - for economic and energy security reasons as much as environmental. And as it gets more popular the technology becomes cheaper and more efficient. Unfortunately, the other side is that the industralisation of developing countries could more than compensate for that as they become as gas-guzzling as we are. So I do believe that the world is heading towards a healthy place, but unfortunately we haven't reached the peak CO2 output yet, and we'll have to go through many bad years, dead polar bears and flooded cities, before things start getting better.
I appreciate your candor. We absolutely need to keep researching the heck out of climate change, and green energy, and conservation, and looking for new and cleaner tech. I want them to keep redoing the models as new info emerges. My point was that the scary predictions of the 90s have not come true. This means we have more time to work on and solve the climate change problem. Claims that polar bears will soon die out, or that waters are close to drowning many cities, or that billions will starve appear to be very unlikely this century. Again, we need to keep pushing ahead scientifically with urgency but also to ease up on the over the top OMG rhetoric at the same time. I too hate it when data is used to mislead the uneducated masses.
I think the problem is more the more industrial cow breeds but sure; Firk the Hecks and their attempt to create a semblance of the aurochs. What the heck are these hecks looking at
I can't think of a better example of people using data to mislead than those who measure changes in the climate and then predict disaster. Guess we better keep funding these guys so they can keep improving their model though.
I can't think of a more anticlimactic way to end than to slowly wait for people emigrating because of changing enviroments causing crops to fail by rising salinity and lowered vitamin content floods and droughts spreading to outside of bangladesh. I really liked how even the people being paid by the oil industry and people who have been doing research trying to disprove climate change for years are saying it i a thing that is happening. it's really funny.
Really? There's one in this thread. It's what I've been talking about. The difference is that the models are attempting to figure out what happened because on the available information - and it is currently predicting bad trends, but that doesn't mean it always will. The models have been consistently revised down based on the recent trends - who knows if they will continue to "predict disaster." Personally I have no stake one way or another. We will learn something either way. On the other hand, the one that is ACTUALLY misleading is the side that admits to starting with a biased position and attempting to seek only the specific subset of data that support their position and present it as a whole story. Selectively choosing data to push a particular agenda - nothing more, nothing less. I mean, it's quite obvious which one is trying to manipulate the data with the intention to mislead. I don't understand how you can think otherwise.
Which limb is that? What is the damage that's been done by climate change? Oh right, all the terrorism. No one denies the climate changes. What is disputed is what will happen in the future. Oh it's easy for a global warmer to 'eastimate' what will happen IF the climate continues to change at the same rate and direction. But let Fox News try that method of analysis on jobless claims then all hell breaks loose and suddenly leftists understand the word 'cyclical'.
ragic you have a serious case of dumb, please see a doctor. for one you think an analogy of less damage than predicted in reference to the global temperature rise somehow relates to terrorism then you want to not err on the side of caution for some reason. then you move on to somehow imply fox news is a credible scientific agency that can do science better than literally everyone who actually studies the climate.
