[bryanrasmussen]

So, because he's a nutter the graph shouldn't be front page news is the argument then? That'll teach him.

He will learn the regret the day he dared say "hey, this graph means we're all gonna die if we don't do something! Look at it!" because we outsmarted him by refusing to look.

[luddit3]

The argument is that when a data point comes from a source with such an obvious bias, the data point is called into question.

[kelseyfrog]

The beautiful thing about evidence is that it's able to be evaluated on its own merit.

Adding heuristics trades accuracy for speed. It's fine to be overloaded and rely on heuristics, but let's call them what they are, shortcuts.

[ablation]

You seem to be projecting onto me far more than my words literally state. I neither stated nor insinuated anything of the sort.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Because he's a nutter, you should not take his word for it that a 3.5 sigma event (1 in ~2000 for a normal distribution) in the temperature of a particular ocean region means we're all gonna die if we don't do something.

[virgilp]

Well before I knew he was a nutter, it strikes be that the graph starts in 1991. Feels like we should should have more data than that, and that the same graph would be more powerful if it started in 1800 and showed the same thing (or at least, earlier in the 20th century, surely we must have data from the 1950s at least? probably earlier?)

Not saying that the data is not concerning, or that climate warming isn't real, BTW. I'm just saying this particular graph feels fishy.