3 ms·

Please don't conflate some sort of political viewpoint to my my strictly scientific criticisms. I didn't say anything except that the idea of comparing data to

Please don't conflate some sort of political viewpoint to my my strictly scientific criticisms. I didn't say anything except that the idea of comparing data today to many decades ago seems ridiculous when there are so many factors involved with what the temperature is, including location, sun, wind, etc. I'm more interested in accuracy rather than politics or news-grabbing headlines. Regardless, your point doesn't have any validity. There is a systemic difference between the front of my house and the back of my house in terms of temperature. My thermometers are extremely accurate, with 0.5F if I remember correctly. And the average/median would still show a net 4F difference. So no, your point is invalid, there is still a problem with the data due to location.

vectorjohn 11y ago
It's not a political criticism. For there to be a steady, statistical rise in temperature over time due to how people measure temperatures, you have to come up with some mechanism for how that could possibly happen. It would have to be a deliberate effort to game temperature readings so they look warmer slowly over the course of decades. Someone would have to come up with a rate of change such that thermometers don't all go from a shady place to direct sunlight in one year, so it looks all gradual. Your argument holds no water. We're not talking about one person with a thermometer they've been moving to increasingly warmer parts of the house for a hundred years. If you don't trust the data sets we have, then you might as well throw almost all science away because most of it is built on shakier data sets than this.