[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fixed.
[/ QUOTE ]
How is such absurdly obvious cherry picking "fixed?" Please provide a chart that includes all the other decades in between and a few more from before and I'll considering it "fixed." Although even then I would question why they're doing "5 to 5" instead of a standard decade. Hell these aren't even decades but 11 years. Weird...
The fact that you take cherry picked non-useful crap like this and call it "evidence" is why I have such a hard time taking you (and the global warming community as a whole) seriously. Every damned time people quote me statistics it's statistically insignificant cherry picking.
[/ QUOTE ]
That table is from the American Meteorological Society. The raw data is in the links of the image I provided. Feel free to make your own graphs just make sure they are at the same points of the oscillation. If you can prove this paper was cherry picking then you should be able to get your name in some scientific journal.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not the one trying to prove anything! You are! This is like the Christian asking the agnostic or atheist for proof that God doesn't exist. I have no interest in trying to prove to you that global warming does or does not exist because
I don't know. I
assume that you are trying to convince people of the "truth" of global warming, which is why I'm telling you that your point is flawed and unconvincing. If you don't care, why are you even bothering?
It may or may not
actually be cherry picked. I don't know, I'm just saying it sure looks that way to anyone actually thinks about the things they're told rather than sheepishly accepting them. The fact is that presenting data in this fashion is crappy propaganda,
even if the point the data is trying to make is completely true, and I don't give a damn who it was that made it.