|
While not a social scientist, I spent many years in criminal justice management where data and the analysis of such became more and more refined. My use of that data was critical but awfully difficult to communicate to others. Again, my skepticism comes from too many years working with people who were paid, in effect, to have a particular outcome notwithstanding the data. That I hasten to add, was true on all sides of a given issue. I think one of my problems is that it appears the data analysis is actually very limited, in terms of earth time. What I mean is that there seems to be some pretty good stuff recently, (for the sake of argument, 10,000 years). But beyond that, the analysis becomes very, very weak. My brain says well when you are missing such a huge piece of the picture, then one needs to become very careful. I guess what I am missing is the confidence in the analysis of the proxy data which apparently shows changes associated with human history (industrial revolution). Is that for instance, simply correlation? Are there other possible explanations aside from human activity? Fascinating stuff I say. But, please, I need fish selection help, really. I also wonder if natural events, volcanic activity for example, of which were are not aware have contributed to the temp history?
|