If you want to disagree with me, do it directly. This passive-aggressive shit you do sucks. Man up and say what you want to say directly.
I AGREE that the “97% of all scientists” thing is bullshit — — so let’s take that little straw man you raised and shoot it in the back of the head. I even SAID that straight up in one of the exchanges, so that tells me you didn’t bother to read the entire thread before “responding”. This is what I posted two levels back on that:
Don’t tell me about “97%”; I am sure 97% of biologists believed in spontaneous generation before experimentation to the contrary. Correlation is not causation, nor does it IMPLY causation to any serious extent without an analysis of other variables. Etc. Etc.
Case in point — if you want to know what I think about a particular datapoint, ask me. Don’t guess.
Now, let’s talk about DATA:
I work with DATA every day. It’s 100% of what I do for a living. I know about how it’s gathered, how its stored, how it’s governered, how it’s maintained — — the entire data lifecycle. And THEN, even more importantly, how it’s analyzed, processed, and how insights are drawn from it.
You can’t say the same. Don’t try.
Now, about this DATA. It is well known that a data scientist spends about 80% of his or her time “cleaning up” their data. Why? Because raw data is crap when it’s gathered, most of the time. Then, it gets stored without much regard to how it’s governered. So, when a scientist (perhaps a climate scientist) actually sits down to analyze data, be that from sensor output, or core data, or whathaveyou, they have to start cleaning it up.
How do they do that? Well, they apply accepted statistical methodologies that are used across disciplines to do so. They toss out their statistical outliers. They apply smoothing algorithms. Etc. Etc.
None of that is dishonest, nor is any of that falsification. But it does require the statistician to make educated choices on how to refine the dataset. And those educated choices may be different from statistician to statistician.
None of that is lying.
Now, yes, if you have a case where you KNOW that the alarmist statistician went in and physically CHANGED THE VALUES for no other reason then to support the narrative, then yes, I fully agree with you that that person should be exposed as a fraud and their research tossed.
But that’s NOT usually the case. IN MOST CASES, the objection to the conclusion is based on the use of a different statistical methodology — and it’s now up to the public (who doesn’t get this stuff) to decide which of the two methodologies is more appropriate. Good luck. :-)
Your response to me is beneath you. Far below your normal standards. It’s like you felt obligated to say SOMETHING because you were being disagreed with, but you didn’t have anything solid to complain about, so you went ad hominem.