There is a difference between a simplification which outlines the argument of a proper study, and using the same methods that a pseudoscientific or cargo cult study would use. It does not justify the latter that it gets the "right" answer. There's a good reason you don't get many marks in your maths exam for producing the right answer having followed a fallacious method. And it is an own goal, because it can be rightly taken apart by a denialist wihout even doing any nasty denialist tricks.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:49 pmI know that denialists love doing this - taking a bit of a summary out of context and trying to pick holes in it without understanding the underlying science - but unless you are a denialist yourself I don't see much point in aping their tedious shenanigans. This forum is mercifully free of them, which means we can have more interesting high-level discussions about reality rather than trying to explain how to read a webpage to some a..hole who's only pretending not to understand it.
I'm afraid I am disappointed by a lot of articles from the Met Office which it seems to me have not passed this test. It isn't an excuse that it is intended for a lay audience. If the Met Office think it is OK to persuade the lay audience with material of this quality, then the lay audience can be easily taken in by the denialists presenting material that is very hard to distinguish from it. And it is so bad I don't even believe the quantification, even if I believe (for other reasons) the trend.
Unfortunately, statistics are hard, and short term weather statistics are particularly hard because they have a low signal to noise ratio when trying to elucidate climate trends over periods of a few decades. It's very difficult to navigate a course between unjustified argument and accessibility to the layman. But if we don't do it properly, the denialists can dance around much more easily.