Data and statistics versus the Biden EPA

Another case of "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

This claims would be alarming, were they based on a real analysis. What is really alarming is that they are not. Hide the data, confirm your hypothesis, as with the total acreage burned. Rather than use all the data, the EPA starts its graphing of losses starting in 1983.

It's disgusting how government agencies manipulate data to conform to their beliefs to then support their 'predictions.' The EPA as of 2021 is a great case in point, as vividly, graphically and systematically illustrated by Tony Heller, here.

Heat waves? If you look at data only since 1960 -- ignoring data available since 1890, you get two very different trends.

Clever bureaucrats know how to create fear among the public (especially among vulnerable children in the public education disinformation factories), increase their budgets, and get interviewed by CNN by doing the following:

1. Choose a convenient year in which to start your 'history' behind your trend and forecast.

2. Project future data from a short or truncated recent trend.

3. Use a statistic that is almost impossible to understand. The WSJ reinforced this practice on May 21, using "age-adjusted mortality rates" and five-year averages" to create a false picture of "Covid deaths" in 2020, another figure much more subjective than the raw count conveys.

4. 'Adjust' or discard data that does not support their thesis. The infamous East Anglia fudge of temperatures, a method used to create the "hockey stick" model, is the best example.

5. Decline to share your data or your subjective adjustments to the data.

6. Make an appeal to authority, claiming expertise or 'science' as your authority or credibility, rather than using the scientific method, e.g., valid data, statistics, and hypothesis testing.

7. Make baseless accusations against those who question your conclusions, rather than defend or explain the false claim.

8. Claim status as a 'public servant' or as a 'respected journalist,' with no personal agenda or bias involved.

9. Claim a 'consensus' around the 'science' -- actually around a selective or biased group of 'scientists' or 'experts' -- that is either ill-formed, irrelevant or dated.

10. Cite a single, supposedly authoritative opinion as a fact when often it is just that, an opinion and sometimes a prediction with no accountability, i.e., in 1996, predict the Arctic will be ice-free by 2010, and then not actually check the state of the Arctic ice come 2010.

Oh the joy of critical thinking!