Essentially if you extrapolate with virtually any method you are more likely to see extreme values than not. When you see extreme values like that from extrapolation you are supposed to consider that maybe you don't have the best extrapolation method. Not publish it, much less publish it as irrefutable data.
If you extrapolate and see values unlike any in the training series it should be considered automatic junk if it is not from a linear regression (less likely to generate extreme values from extrapolation), and even then you should consider values trending a bit more to the mean to be more likely.
These people aren't scientists. They are propagandists. Even with a good scientist 19/20 of your data analysis is junk. The difference is a good scientist scrutinizes the 19 out of 20 times he produced junk.
When independent researchers were finally able to get ahold of Micheal Mann's (the originator of the 'hockey stick' graph in 1999) computer data (which he fought them tooth and nail to prevent) they found that they could enter any data at all, INCLUDING RANDOM NOISE, and the resulting output would show a "warming trend".
To summarize, tree ring data that is used as a climate proxy does not match recent warmth (the sharp uptick, or "blade", in the hockey stick graph). So they buried inconvenient data and manipulated graphs to "present a nice tidy story" and keep "faith in the paleoestimates".
[ + ] Deplorablepoetry
[ - ] Deplorablepoetry 2 points 3 monthsJan 20, 2024 20:58:02 ago (+2/-0)
Those with below room temperature IQ struggle with things like seasons
[ + ] NoRefunds
[ - ] NoRefunds 2 points 3 monthsJan 20, 2024 23:20:07 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] NukeAmerica
[ - ] NukeAmerica 2 points 3 monthsJan 20, 2024 19:09:21 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 1 point 3 monthsJan 20, 2024 20:49:45 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 2 points 3 monthsJan 20, 2024 18:26:58 ago (+2/-0)*
If you extrapolate and see values unlike any in the training series it should be considered automatic junk if it is not from a linear regression (less likely to generate extreme values from extrapolation), and even then you should consider values trending a bit more to the mean to be more likely.
These people aren't scientists. They are propagandists. Even with a good scientist 19/20 of your data analysis is junk. The difference is a good scientist scrutinizes the 19 out of 20 times he produced junk.
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 1 point 3 monthsJan 20, 2024 20:48:20 ago (+1/-0)
coughcovidtyrannycough
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 0 points 3 monthsJan 23, 2024 09:27:45 ago (+0/-0)
When independent researchers were finally able to get ahold of Micheal Mann's (the originator of the 'hockey stick' graph in 1999) computer data (which he fought them tooth and nail to prevent) they found that they could enter any data at all, INCLUDING RANDOM NOISE, and the resulting output would show a "warming trend".
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 2 points 3 monthsJan 20, 2024 17:56:19 ago (+3/-1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8xd0LCeRQ
To summarize, tree ring data that is used as a climate proxy does not match recent warmth (the sharp uptick, or "blade", in the hockey stick graph). So they buried inconvenient data and manipulated graphs to "present a nice tidy story" and keep "faith in the paleoestimates".
[ + ] uvulectomy
[ - ] uvulectomy 1 point 3 monthsJan 20, 2024 23:58:19 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 1 point 3 monthsJan 20, 2024 20:47:07 ago (+1/-0)