I wrote earlier about bad research in general, and climate science right now is a primary example. Here is an article from Watts Up With That illustrating bad climate research. One of the most common tricks in climate science, also found in some other areas, is to cherrypick a starting and/or ending point for the study period. This is especially problematic when what you are studying may have a cyclical aspect to it. This particular post was regarding sea level rise. Sea levels have risen and fallen over hundreds of years, thousands of years, millions of years; depending on a variety of factors including how much ice is locked up on land, how much uplift or depression there is in the earth’s crust and so on. Of course, sea level rise due to melting ice is one of the climate hysterics primary fear-m0ngering efforts.
Sea level has generally risen since the last ice age ended, as you would expect. We are still likely, thankfully, a few thousand years away from the next ice age. The question over the last few decades has been whether fictitious global warming is causing more melting and an acceleration of sea level increases, which are extremely small at this point in any event. The author demonstrates how cherrypicking a start point greatly changes the answer to the question, as sea level appears to have some natural periodicity to it. Satellite data was used and it appears that modifying a start date can have a substantial effect on the actual rate of change, including some start points showing a deceleration. It appears that in reality sea level rise varies over about a 28 year period, so if that is true, it matters where you pick a start point and how long you run that point for. The outcome of this study appears more consistent with tide gauge results than do the analysis produced by hysterics showing alleged ever-increasing acceleration. (WUWT Post)
