*yawn*Wneglia wrote:[Selective Data Points?
This claim gets made all the time, backed up by graphs and carefully selected data. You've posted some of those claims here before.
And yet they all get quickly disproven. Facts were taken out of context. A result from one measurement gets highlighted while 99 others that disagree are ignored. The explanation for adjusted data are ignored. (Weather stations in a city center vs the countryside, different units of measure being used, different instruments used over time, etc.) But in the end it's shown that NASA, NOAA and many other organizations in other countries actually monitoring climate data were right all along. The climate models that the climate-deniers said were wrong, are shown to be right. ALWAYS. EVERY TIME.
Which is why theses claims are made ALL THE TIME. They get repeated by a hundred different blogs, and posted to forums like this one by people too goddamned stupid to notice that their last umpteen such posts were shown to be frauds. A few days later when the fraud is countered with facts, it's old news and the next such fraud is already making the rounds.
Heck, I'm still seeing people claiming that the "ClimateGate" emails PROVED that real climate scientists were making up data. When in reality no such thing happened. (The best the deniers could do is take discussion of trimming a document so that it can fit on one printed page out of context, and misrepresent it as "altering the data.) Because all the saw, all they wanted to see, was the denier claims and not the debunking that came later.
