3 ms·
Instead of reading a negative interpretation into one sentence, did you actually look into the research which is just a few clicks away? Of course you didn't.
by inimino 10y ago
Instead of reading a negative interpretation into one sentence, did you actually look into the research which is just a few clicks away? Of course you didn't.
The adjustments were in response to new data and new analysis, which you can see if you bother to look at the paper before posting ill-founded speculation. The article is pointing out that the UK did the analysis first, so NOAA was behind. You've turned this into some kind of harmonization of some other kind which just isn't there. This sets off "tamper" alarm bells only for someone who is (a) expecting to find tampering and (b) didn't do even the most trivial research to falsify their suspicions.
- cool_look 10y agoi did read the links... what basis do you have for thinking i didn't. so tell me, what about the radiosonds not corresponding to the corrections? oh, did you not know about counter evidence outside this article that also point to tampering ? no, you just slung mud https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/06/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-217/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/06/weekly-climate-and-en...
- inimino 10y ago> what basis do you have for thinking i didn't The paper contradicts what you implied. > so tell me, what about [changing the topic to something that hasn't been shot down yet and also doesn't demonstrate what you claim] I think we're done here.