So you know more than all the scientists with PHD's?
Tell me where you studied.
<<
Uh, yes, it is. Taken inconsistently, with a variety of instrumentation dating back to a period when instrumentation was imprecise and little was known about such things as the heat island effect, limited to an almost insignificant quantity of data to begin with. Commonly, readings over extended periods of time are extrapolated from the readings that were before and after.
Yes, it is a mess. That why we have all these "adjustments" which do nothing more than further corrupt the data meaningfulness of the data. And there is, unfortunately, no way to "fix" the lousy data that adds anything other than noise to the analysis. All this when we're talking about extremely narrow margins.
Going forward, satellite data can provide some consistency, but that will take years to assemble meaningful data out of it.
For right now, I would not want to be trying to use those data as the basis for meaningful models. That's not to say it is worthless, but it explains why IPCC continues to have to broaden ranges for expectations and has throughout its existence.
I'll stop, but you are wrong. Historical data is a mess. Anyone with a strong background in statistics ought to be able to see this.
>> The right wing has no idea what they do not know.
Has nothing to do with right vs. left. This is about the data. |
