3 ms·
It's trivially easy to see that all this "record breaking" is just recency bias, not global warming. This makes no sense. Are they not just comparing numbers?
by EliRivers 3y ago
It's trivially easy to see that all this "record breaking" is just recency bias, not global warming.
This makes no sense. Are they not just comparing numbers? Or do you suggest that when they compare numbers to see which number is bigger, they add a bit to the number from this year because they have a recency bias?
- sublinear 3y agoData from the past is less accurate and incomplete. That creates a bias for recent data even if the real atmospheric temperatures have not changed. We're forced to treat the data as the source of truth only because it's all we have, but we shouldn't assume the data is perfect. In statistics, picking out individual data points is about as silly as it gets.
- EliRivers 3y agoThat's not "recency bias". Rather than "recency bias", I suspect you meant that data from the past is less accurate and less complete, due to measurement technology, measurement techniques and record-keeping.