dcbwhaley wrote:
Untill you show some hard, verifiable data that contradicts the NASA data that can only be regarded as your opinion and makes no contribution to the debate.. Pointing out the platitude that ice extent has changed in the past does not make the NASA data for recent changes wrong.
I'm not so sure about that logic.
We know the SCPs have given quantified claims regarding the effectiveness of speed cameras, but even when accounting for RTTM and long-term trends I can still state that the SCPs claims are still
wrong by logically demonstrating there
must be at least one other significant confounding factor (bias on selection) and showing how it
must add to the illusion of effectiveness, yet I don't have any verifiable data for it.
Jomukuk has demonstrated a confounding factor (ground shift, which is very plausible given continental shift); however, it likely isn’t as one-directional as bias on selection. I tend to agree that this doesn’t prove the nasa facts to be wrong; 'possibly misleading' might be a better description.
However, I am highly suspicious about that nasa sea level data as presented.
I grant there likely won’t be much satellite data before 1993, but why does the data set for the coastal tide gauge records stop at 1991? Surely that data is still collected? This is critical considering there
seems to be a rather abrupt change of rate-of-rise at that very time period.
Why have they seemingly ditched the common-sense principle of remaining with the consistent benchmark throughout, instead committing with the satellite data benchmark? Is it because it the latter gives alarmist results?