This time a comment of mine, which I had submitted on January, 24, 2013, in reply to the posting "Burt Rutan: 'This says it all and clear'" got vanished or never appeared at Anthony Watts's blog "Watts Up With That?". My reply listed some major flaws of the posting. It is one of the many examples how fake skeptics lie using cherry picked data and flawed statistics. I addressed this pseudo-scientific approach also in the post "How to create a false 'global warming standstill'".
Here is the comment:
----- snip -----
Three major flaws in the post:
1. Cherry picking of data intervals and the data set to support the desired message.
2. Drawing scientifically invalid conclusions from changes in limited data, which are not statistically significant.
3. Straw man argumentation, where something is being "refuted" that is not being stated (as if any climate scientist has claimed that CO2 was the only factor influencing the global atmospheric or surface temperature record, and that there was a linear relationship between CO2 emission or CO2 mixing ratio in the atmosphere and observed temperature record).
But the crowd here is generally applauding. So much for the skepticism of "skeptics".
I don't know for what purpose Mr. Watts posted this. But if the purpose has been to expose what I am seeing here, it is a full success.
----- snip -----
Here is the comment:
----- snip -----
Three major flaws in the post:
1. Cherry picking of data intervals and the data set to support the desired message.
2. Drawing scientifically invalid conclusions from changes in limited data, which are not statistically significant.
3. Straw man argumentation, where something is being "refuted" that is not being stated (as if any climate scientist has claimed that CO2 was the only factor influencing the global atmospheric or surface temperature record, and that there was a linear relationship between CO2 emission or CO2 mixing ratio in the atmosphere and observed temperature record).
But the crowd here is generally applauding. So much for the skepticism of "skeptics".
I don't know for what purpose Mr. Watts posted this. But if the purpose has been to expose what I am seeing here, it is a full success.
----- snip -----
No comments:
Post a Comment