From: jtem01@gmail.com   
      
    SolomonW wrote:   
      
   > The problem today is that with data mining software, we are often analysis   
   > 100s of variables at once.   
   >   
   > Let us say that we are looking at 100 variables at 5% acceptance, which is   
   > common, now through random chance 5 of those variables will be wrong, but   
   > the test will show its positive.   
   >   
   > Now if I wanted to be *clever* and push a agenda, I just talk about one of   
   > these five points. I could write a perfectly valid research paper on it too   
   > as I have the data to back it up.   
   >   
   > It becomes worse if I introduce new variables, for example, time and place,   
   > as now for each variable I have two more variables to play with.   
      
   I get it. Data is only ever interpreted. It's easy   
   to judge results, tilt conclusions any way you want.   
   But what they're doing here is studying the Holocene   
   and then declaring that the Holocene doesn't match   
   the Holocene!   
      
   The Holocene isn't the first interglacial. It isn't   
   the second interglacial and it isn't the fifth. So   
   if we want to know what the planet looks like WITHOUT   
   human industry or agriculture then we look at the   
   previous interglacial. But it was warmer, and that's   
   not what we want. Nope. It doesn't help the agenda.   
      
   Quite frankly, so much as acknowledging that this is   
   indeed an interglacial, that there is another glacial   
   period due -- even overdue -- is offensive to the   
   "Global Warming" agenda. After all, who in their right   
   mind would be capable of caring if the planet were to   
   grow slightly closer to it's normal, pre ice age   
   temperatures WHEN WE'RE OVERDUE TO DIE IN ANOTHER   
   GLACIAL PERIOD?   
      
   Just that fact alone -- that we are inside of an   
   interglacial period, one that's thousands of years   
   OLDER than most of them have lasted -- debunks the   
   entire "Global Warming" narrative...   
      
   "Oh no!  We might see a large delay in the complete   
   destruction of western civilization beneath mile   
   tall glaciers!"   
      
   Gosh, darn, I can see why "Global Warming" jackasses   
   get upset over the thought of *That*.... billions   
   not dying in a glacial apocalypse... some of the   
   greatest cities mankind has ever build NOT getting   
   bulldozed by advancing mountains of ice... what a   
   horrible thought!   
      
   So "Global Warming" idiocy can't even acknowledge   
   the fact that we are inside the tail end of a very   
   short lived interglacial, not without upsetting the   
   hysterical narrative.   
      
   So, no, it's not just a matter of how you slice   
   and dice the data, because "Global Warming" would   
   be a very good thing, if you just acknowledge   
   actual CLIMATE SCIENCE, the glacial/interglacial   
   cycle and the fact that the most popular estimates   
   date the Holocene to almost 12,000 years ago --   
   and more accurately 15,000 years ago, accounting   
   for the Younger Dryas cooling -- when most such   
   interglacials only lasted 10k years.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   -- --   
      
   http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178796353538   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)