Originally Posted by
JamesNoBrakes
No offense, but that's just as bad as the science you are trying to discredit. Being within 95% is the accepted gold standard, and you have no idea if it will stay there or not, but so far they are correct. There are much more advanced quantitative methods that can be used to quantify and explain data, which I assume is what the scientist do, but you're not really helping your cause.
JamesNoBrakes:
No offense taken, you have a valid point. Based on the image, there is no question that the calculated average still rests inside the 95% confidence interval.
However, for years this crowd has not consented to suffer any questions about their work, their conclusions, or their models. They extrapolate their models decades into the future and get shockingly high temperatures. These results are used by politicians and bureaucrats to justify government interventions into the economy--interventions that are wasteful, inefficient and, frequently, stupid.
I am looking at the actual temperature from the image and extrapolating too. But I am just looking forward a couple of years into the future. Based on that simple observation it seems likely that the actual temperatures will deviate sufficiently from the models as to be outside the 95% confidence interval. That should invalidate the models and, perhaps, teach a bit of humility to those who work in climate science.
If the temperatures start going up again it will be me that is wrong.
Cheers
WW