3 ms·
Reading the article I see some very short timeframes being used (e.g. 1991-2020, 1979-2000) as statistically relevant. Might be enough when preaching to the cho
by htk 3y ago
Reading the article I see some very short timeframes being used (e.g. 1991-2020, 1979-2000) as statistically relevant. Might be enough when preaching to the choir, but irrelevant to the skeptics.
- jgilias 3y agoThose are standard climatological periods. You need that for data to be comparable and make sense. I would expect the skeptics to put in at least minor surface level effort in trying to understand the thing that they’re skeptical about, but yeah, maybe that’s too much to ask.
- lm28469 3y agoSkeptics will stay skeptics whatever we say. Last time the timeframe was too long, this time the timeframe is too short. "we had ice age in the past", "we had warming in the past", 1990 is too close, -2m years is too far, the sun is closer (it's not), "numbers can say anything", "oooooh spooky graphs ;)" &c.
- klyrs 3y agoIf we move the goalpost to before we started collecting data, then all studies are invalid and the problem goes away!
- coldtea 3y agoNot so much sceptics as "prejudiced".