Excellent responses to the previous post guys.
I put up that post for a reason, and just because I was bored. It was to demonstrate how anyone can pick out some data and present it in a way that makes the point they wish. But you already know this, so apart from being mischievous what am I really going on about? Some of you smelled a rat as the emails that landed testify.
The point of the post was to be a lead in to a criticism of Dr Kevin Trenberth, who is the most visible example of a scientist who guilty of making data look like something it probably isn’t. Consider this assessment by Luboš Motl of the way Trenberth is using data in a document circulated to the American Meteorological Society (AMS):
So Hansen’s prediction for the 12-year interval is wrong by 0.60 °C. Now, Trenberth tries to downplay this error as a consequence of “short-term natural variability” that should be ignored and that has earned the label “travesty” just because of a typo. The error is obviously too tiny, he says in between the lines – and sometimes explicitly.
But note that this 0.60 °C discrepancy per the 12-year period is as high as the whole 20th century “global warming” that remains the main empirical argument in favor of the “climate disruption”. How is it possible that the change by 0.60 °C per century is a “sign of a looming catastrophe” while the same unexpected change by 0.60 °C – but now per 12 years (a much faster change) – is a tiny error or an effect that may be ignored?
It is on the strength of such selective use of data by Trenberth to to arrive at predictions – that are often used as a baseline by other scientists for their research – that hundreds of billions of pounds are being spent to ‘tackle’ something that is unlikely to be caused by humans, but equally might not be the problem it is framed to be.
If the temperature stalls or declines by a certain figure, it’s short term natural variability. If it rises by the same amount, it is climate disruption. Trenberth can’t have it both ways. It is logical fallacy such as Trenberth’s that call into question the whole AGW narrative.