>> And you want to suppress anything that supports the thesis of climate change despite the fact overwhelming scientific evidence supports it.
Anyone who understands statistics and has looked at these data objectively will conclude, at the very least, that there is a great deal of manipulation of data happening here, and the real outrage is the absolute collective incompetence of the peer review process in journals like Science and Nature -- both of which have allowed numerous articles through that should never have seen the light of day. Articles which have persuaded the scientifically illiterate that a problem exists where it is either nonexistent or much smaller than the so-called research has indicated.
Simply put, there is no "overwhelming scientific evidence." In fact, there is little evidence that is statistically sound at all. As Steyn put it, "There are two problems with proxy reconstruction -- the proxies and the reconstruction."
No matter how many times you recombine, twist, turn, correlate, regress, analyze the variance, the residuals, the Pearson, and god help us, the ER ("Error Reduction", as close to a conveniently invented statistic as you can get!), it just doesn't matter. You cannot get accuracy to +/- 1C over thousands of years. It is meaningless driven and no amount of arithmetic changes that fact. |
