In my experience I have spent a lot of time explaining what a systematic error is to people who went to school at least a decade ago. > Present edited data, dr

In my experience I have spent a lot of time explaining what a systematic error is to people who went to school at least a decade ago. > Present edited data, drop data This is exactly what I mean. The people at the LHC (and probably LIGO) have to do this all the time because they generate vast amounts of noisy data too. CERN actually invented quite a lot of machine learning techniques to be able to drop as much data as they have to do. For example, there's a famous temperature sensor in the UK that is obviously biased by being in the middle of London, how you would you use that data? Berkeley Earth, funded by Koch brothers, independently produced a report concluding that global warming was not only real, but also with a curve that was broadly consistent with the IPCC curve too. And it's probably fair to say that I did make an appeal to authority, however I stand by it because I have spent quite a lot of time listening to people who obviously have no idea what goes on in a physics department — forget conspiracy, just the basics of how to make a quantitative statement about a process e.g. "How can you predict something that hasn't happened yet" is one example, or using "correlation isn't causation" as a Crux to deny literally any causal argument. Climate scientists for the most part aren't the best and brightest scientists however that doesn't really matter, because the basic concept of drawing a line through an obviously increasing curve and noting a strong link with CO2 emissions isn't very hard. The difficult stuff is working out which parts of the world will be more effected by local phenomena. https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72 https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72