Here is another one I like:
Quote:
The author of Figure 1 employs a bit of marginally acceptable, subjective chartsmanship to underscore a point. He selected scale factors and data ranges to emphasize the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. The peak to peak swings in the chart traces are arbitrarily made to look alike. This is subjective and artificial, but harmless here.
What is not harmless, though, is climatologists seizing on the lock-step rising and falling of temperature and carbon dioxide as evidence, if not proof, of their greenhouse gas theory: increased CO2 allegedly causes increased temperatures.
|
Sure, newsweek, time, and other media may offer this irrefutable proof. The scientific papers I have read note a correlation. They do not 'seize' on this as proof and then go home and say job well done. They look for additional information, more correlations and other evidence to support the relationship.
Every time he talks of climatologist he portrays them as incompetant, quick to jump to conclusions and conspiricists.
