I'm not (in this conversation) challenging the specific adjustments that have been made. That's not my point.
Could you give me an example of any kind of an adjustment that hasn't been thought of?
By definition, the answer would be no. If it's thought of, then it doesn't belong in that set. If it hasn't been thought of, then no one can mention it.
The main point is that most people studying the issue of climate change are biased to see climate change. (Its not a one way street, there are plenty biased to see no trend, or otherwise see climate change as an absolute zero issue, or even fraud, bias is ubiquitous.) When they look for adjustments to raw data that might result in numbers that more accurately reflect reality, there will likely be more effort made to find, and less skepticism of, factors that have depressed the trend in the raw data (and thus would increase the trend when compensated for) than there would be for factors that increase the trend in the raw data (and thus the adjustment would decrease the trend in the adjusted data).
The fact that independent groups arrive at almost identical results using different methods indicates that both are making good faith efforts to provide the best possible analysis of global temperature changes.
1 - No it doesn't.
2 - I didn't accuse them of bad faith. As I've pointed out the type of bias I'm talking about - "doesn't even require intentional conscious bias, let alone some vast conspiracy". Good faith != "not biased". |
