Larry Jaques wrote:
On 4 Jul 2005 12:01:09 -0700, the opaque
clearly wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:
"How can we make our point with so little data to go on? Aha, make the
increments so small the data (with which we want to scare folks) is
off the charts!" Oh, and "Let's estimate data about 10x longer than
we have ANY data for.)
SPLORF! I realize that is not your only criticism but it is hilarious
that you would base ANY criticism on the tic spacing on the temeprature
axis. If they spaced the tics 10 degrees apart the plot would look the
same, it would just be harder to convert the picture to numbers.
Graph range has been used to hide data more than once, bubba.
Sure, had the authore chosen a range from, say -100 C to + 100 C the
chart would be inscrutable. As it is, the range appears tobe
chosen as any sensible person would, to fit the data on the page
within comfortable margins.
BTW, why'd you change the subject from tic-spacing to range? Perhaps
you DO realize the tic spacing is arbitrary, just like the choice
of origin?
Here
they go the opposite direction to support falsehoods and hysteria.
The graph in question looks to me to have bene prepared for some
sort of dog and pony show. If it was created by a climatologist
in the first place, I'll bet it was created to show to reporters
and politicians (and also bet that they didn't understand it anyways.)
It has been over a decade since I last attended a coloquium given
by a climatologist. At that time predictions were being made based
on climate models--not by looking at a graph and imagining it extended
beyond the right margin.
For example, this fellow (sorry I do not remember his name) explained
that one of the objections to a Kyoto type agreement (this was
before Kyoto) came about because some models predicted that average
annual rainfall in Siberia would decrease over about the next fifty
years but then increase over the following 100. So the Soviets
(this was back when there were still Soviets) were concerned about
not stabilizing global change at a time when Siberia was near the
dryest part of the expected changes.
Note also that Siberia getting drier for fifty years and then
getting wetter for a hunderd years after is a nonlinear change.
The prediction was not being made by simply extending a plot.
People who write as if the predictions made by climatologists
are based on extrapolating from dog and pony show style visual
aids a
1) Not very honest.
or
2) Not very bright.
or
3) Have been misled by people fitting 1) and/or 2) above.
I've never worked on a Climate model but have no doubt that
Climatologists rely on tried and true statistical methods
to fit data to their models and to made predictions from
those models just like any other scientist.
If they underestimate the uncertainties in their data, or
overestimate the degrees of freedom in their models their
reduced chi-squares will be too small, just like they were
when Gregor Mendel's data were fitted to his theory. (Not
by Mendel himself, he didn't do chi squares). While Mendel's
theory of genetics overestimated the degrees of freedom, his
data fit modern genetic theory quite well.
If someone has a scientifically valid theory, they will have
the math to support it. The same is true for a scientifically
valid criticism of a theory.
If instead, their criticism is that the tic spacing on a graph
is too close, well, that conclusion is left as an exercise for
the reader.
--
FF