I’ve noticed that a lot of recent alarmist comments on climate forums use the term “cherry picking” for any data which doesn’t support their belief system.
For example, the 2010 Moscow heatwave is cited as proof of global warming in this Huffington Post article, but the cool 2013 summer in the US is “cherry picking.”
One might conclude that the lack of warming over the last 17 years indicates that the authors are completely full of shit.
Just the title of the article says they are FOS! They must live in a virtual What-If world!
These tired old talking points. “If it is hot, it proves warming, but if it is cold, it is a local event. Anyhow, since our adjusted (rigged) data set shows warming, there must be warming.”
[My PC is banned here so let’s try my iPhone.]
If we make a mistake and don’t see the thread again, we are “liars.”
If we point it out repeatedly, we are using mere “talking points.”
If a newbie skeptic adopts flimsy arguments, he is a “denier” who
taints seasoned skepticism.
If a “denier” gets a thousands of dollars from conservatives, one may
ignore the millions given to alarmists by white guilt liberals or
Arabs.
If the biosphere is doomed, “no nukes!”
And indeed if we point out data that falsifies AGW claims, we are
“cherry picking.”
“A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be
destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports
that myth.” – Edward de Bono
Edward de Bono was wrong; the word he was defining was not myth, but dogma.
So he made a mythstake?
The hypocrisy of blaming AGW for the Moscow heatwave, and then referring to cool temps in another city or region as “cherry picking,” is palpable.
I’ve seen the “cherry picking” argument for a couple years now, but I agree, it’s a growing trend. I’ve also seen the “averages” argument elsewhere recently in relation to claims of cherry picking. The propagandists are clearly feeding their drones talking points on how to debate with a “denier.”
“Heat Waves Projected To Double By 2020, Quadruple By 2040”
AN entire ‘trillion’ dollar industry of climate alarmist hysteria (scientific studies and media) based on scandalously flawed, overheated climate models.
I wonder, by how many billions it would cost the alarmist industry, for each 10th of a degree of CO2 sensitivity wound back?
By then, it will be “the coming ice-age” scare again, and evil humans will pay penance for that as well. Only a lot more, as cold climate scenarios would actually require financing.
Worth adding, no one even knows what the ‘official’ CO² sensitivity is – 1,2,3 or 4°C by 2100? But until it’s worked out (which it won’t ’cause it’s BS), Govt gravy train pseudo-scientists will continue to run RCP8.5 high emission simulations to get the desired ‘catastrophic’ effect. (Publish or Perish)
A good example of RCP8.5 abuse is in this climate report written for the “World Bank” by Greenpeace activist Bill Hare et al, reviewed by Lomborg in The Australian:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rl2gq9
So all the climate hysteria we read about is simply ‘however severe’ they want it to be!?
unReal Science.
So wrong.
I like this new phrase: “Environmental Jihad”.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/316985-gop-senator-green-group-in-qunholy-allianceq-with-obama-campaign-on-qenvironmental-jihadq
Has a nice ring to it…
NIce.
Upgrade from the Green-sharia
nathanoj uses the typical know-it-all stance while lecturing someone who had the
temerity to point out contradictory data. But he doesn’t give any evidence of knowing
the difference between calculating averages (which is just that) and drawing statistical
conclusions (which involves assumptions about the character of the distribution
being sampled). In particular, I would be surprised if Atlanta is experiencing lower-than-normal
temperatures for an entire summer, while everywhere else it’s ripping hot.
What’s particularly interesting is the way in which our warmist tries to discount the
observation entirely instead of accepting it as a datum – and without giving any specific
evidence to show that temperatures elsewhere are higher-than-normal. In short, it’s
all rhetorical tricks.
He was also wrong about the area of the US. It is less than 2%
The Warmistas will soon be out of cherries, as they will have picked all the cherries that there are, themselves. They can then turn to gathering evidence which will not be so much to their liking.