3 ms·

It's a meaningful measurement of how pleasant it is to work in that building, but it's a bit of a silly detail to sneak in to an article that's primarily about

It's a meaningful measurement of how pleasant it is to work in that building, but it's a bit of a silly detail to sneak in to an article that's primarily about climate change, because things like the building construction, the density, the activities, etc. all impact the temperature far more. How far is this off of normal temperatures? What's the outside temperature? Was the previous record also taken inside? Have to go look outside the article for all of that, and yet it's the headline. edit: sometimes climate science journalism feels like an exercise in trying to hand strawman arguments to deniers, which doesn't help anyone.

slily 3y ago
Some might label you a denier for questioning the conditions of this measurement at all (or more charitably a "skeptic", which is almost as bad nowadays). I'd wager that many people publicly labeled as deniers are simply guilty of not panicking hard enough. Cherry-picked measurements and pessimistic models have long been standard in climate science, so one should take every headline with a grain of salt. That doesn't mean denying that anthropogenic climate change is real, but as with any contentious issue, after being viciously attacked once or twice for pointing that out, I've learned to shut my mouth on most forums.