2 ms·

Everything you say may be factually true, but that would mean we need to improve the quality of these specific measurements. It does not falsify an entire area

Everything you say may be factually true, but that would mean we need to improve the quality of these specific measurements. It does not falsify an entire area of study. Anthropogenic global warming is a theory that encompasses a wide range of data from disparate sources, from economy to geology to chemistry, all of which can be neatly explained by a very simple physical model of the carbon cycle. Bad astronomical readings are just that. They do not invalidate special relativity. Believing otherwise is the hallmark of crackpot physicists. Just nod slowly and hand them an introductory book, and when an alternative theory can explain data outside of a few select readings, then is the time to continue the discussion.

thu2111 6y ago
You can't improve the quality of the measurements. That's the point - the measurements were in the past. The log books are all that exists, so you can only improve the quality of measurements being taken in the future. In fact this has happened. After climatology skeptics made a big stink about the poor state of repair of the US weather station network, Congress commissioned a brand new one. Its construction took into account all the criticisms levelled by skeptics and basically put the matter to rest for newly collected US ground data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Climate_Reference_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Climate_Reference_Network Last I checked the US wasn't actually using data from the new network, but that didn't matter because it currently matches the old network pretty well. The adjustments that cause a fuss are for past recordings, not current data. At any rate, I haven't claimed this falsifies an entire area of study (what would it mean to falsify an area of study anyway?). Climatologists do indeed use temperature data from various sources. However, conclusions based on edited data sets would need to be re-done, otherwise it's not really science is it? And can you blame people for being skeptical when basic temperature history is constantly being re-issued in new 'versions'? Reading thermometers really isn't that hard.

thu2111 6y ago

You can't improve the quality of the measurements. That's the point - the measurements were in the past. The log books are all that exists, so you can only improve the quality of measurements being taken in the future. In fact this has happened. After climatology skeptics made a big stink about the poor state of repair of the US weather station network, Congress commissioned a brand new one. Its construction took into account all the criticisms levelled by skeptics and basically put the matter to rest for newly collected US ground data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Climate_Reference_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Climate_Reference_Network Last I checked the US wasn't actually using data from the new network, but that didn't matter because it currently matches the old network pretty well. The adjustments that cause a fuss are for past recordings, not current data. At any rate, I haven't claimed this falsifies an entire area of study (what would it mean to falsify an area of study anyway?). Climatologists do indeed use temperature data from various sources. However, conclusions based on edited data sets would need to be re-done, otherwise it's not really science is it? And can you blame people for being skeptical when basic temperature history is constantly being re-issued in new 'versions'? Reading thermometers really isn't that hard.