| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" 09:56 - Nov 18 with 24729 views | sP7qupUf |
Is this a genuine attempt to address pressing issues or a smokescreen to detract away from the ongoing issues with the C-19 pandemic, emerging issues around cronyism and the potential disaster with the "oven ready" Brexit deal? The lack of detail would suggest the latter to my mind. |  | | |  |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:03 - Nov 21 with 1481 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:55 - Nov 20 by Catullus |
It's not just my opinion,
https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/links-between-air-pollution-and-childhood-ast
Air pollution makes asthma worse. I am aware of claims that being too clean is bad for us. It'ssomething I have seen a fw times and it wouldn't surprise me. The info and advice changes all the time and we cannot be 100% sure what is true/accurate.
Take my wife's advice during pregnancy. She told to avoid nuts because it might give our son an allergy. she followed the advice. Our son (at age 4) was diagnosed with a severe nut allergy and now the thinking is that it may be because he wasn't exposed to nut protein in the womb.
These things are constantly changing. Do you watch QI? I saw an old episode where they said that things they said were true at time of broadcast were no longer true. That's because science advances and what was considered true has been found to be wrong. That is something that won't stop. Much that we take to be true today will be wrong tomorrow.
You have to be willing to accept you could be wrong, be willing to adjust your opinion.
PS, you can post as quickly as you like but if I'm not looking anymore it won't matter and if I don't see it then I don't see it. |
It is possible that Pollution makes asthma worse, but it is not the cause, the anti-correlation is clear.
For information about the US EPA I think you should read this dread denier site.
The EPA under Obama was turned in to a very corrupt organisation, paying green organistaions to lobby them to create court cases to push Obama's agenda.
Here is the link to Steve Milloy's site.
https://junkscience.com/features/
ps I forgot another possible change that could have impacted our Immune systems, the Fluoridation of our drinking water to prevent tooth decay. Who knows what the really long term consequences may be? [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 11:33]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:07 - Nov 21 with 1481 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 10:55 - Nov 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
You infer that I do not know what they show, that I only think I do.
Which is not correct, having spent at least the last 15 years investigating Climate Change I understand exactly what is being done and why they say that they are doing it. I have read the papers and seen the calculations.
So do you justify those changes yes or no.
If it is yes, what is your justification? |
It is clear that you haven't been investigating climate change for 15 years. You've been reading climate change denial websites and never bothered to try and understand the fundamental issues associated with climate change.
In that reply you've highlighted your lack of knowledge and more importantly understanding.
You've posted a graph from an individual observation site, with no metadata whatsoever. Even if there was metadata it is still one site. It is impossible to draw any conclusions from that.
I only have my phone rather than laptop until Tuesday so can't look properly.
I do wonder though if your climate change investigations have taken you to a weather station of any description, I'd genuinely be interested to know where? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:27 - Nov 21 with 1476 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:07 - Nov 21 by Scotia |
It is clear that you haven't been investigating climate change for 15 years. You've been reading climate change denial websites and never bothered to try and understand the fundamental issues associated with climate change.
In that reply you've highlighted your lack of knowledge and more importantly understanding.
You've posted a graph from an individual observation site, with no metadata whatsoever. Even if there was metadata it is still one site. It is impossible to draw any conclusions from that.
I only have my phone rather than laptop until Tuesday so can't look properly.
I do wonder though if your climate change investigations have taken you to a weather station of any description, I'd genuinely be interested to know where? |
So, now I am a liar.
I understand the fundementals very well.
What is more I understand the Science as well.
You do not need any metadata, of course it is only one site, I have had enough trouble getting you to look at just that one.
I have others, If I put up a dozen will you acyually look at them?
And no I have never visited a Weather station, why would I when I can look at the data from them at any time.
I have even gone back to the actual Daily Station Sheets to look at the original entries.
The original question if you remember was is Cox right about the data not being adjusted, not my expertise, I said I could prove that he was wrong.
This was the start of that process.
You keep avoiding the issue of acknowledging and the justification for the changes shown in those Charts, I wonder why. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 13:44 - Nov 21 with 1456 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:27 - Nov 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
So, now I am a liar.
I understand the fundementals very well.
What is more I understand the Science as well.
You do not need any metadata, of course it is only one site, I have had enough trouble getting you to look at just that one.
I have others, If I put up a dozen will you acyually look at them?
And no I have never visited a Weather station, why would I when I can look at the data from them at any time.
I have even gone back to the actual Daily Station Sheets to look at the original entries.
The original question if you remember was is Cox right about the data not being adjusted, not my expertise, I said I could prove that he was wrong.
This was the start of that process.
You keep avoiding the issue of acknowledging and the justification for the changes shown in those Charts, I wonder why. |
I'm sure you have been reading climate change denial propaganda for 15 years, that doesn't constitute investigation to me.
If you understand the fundamentals and science very well why don't I need the metadata? I'm worried I've wasted years of my life scrutinising it now.
Also if you can fully understand the accuracy and performance of a Mat station from looking at data on a spreadsheet I've seriously wasted my time.
I'd suggest you visit a weather station and think for yourself why the data can't really be used totally "raw". The most easily accessible one in this area is in Victoria Park.
As I said consult a thesaurus, adjustment is a word used in this case to try and suggest fabrication. That is not the case.
Do you think measurements were as accurate 100 years ago as they are now?
You can post a dozen if you want, but to prove the data is fabricated you'd need long term records from thousands of stations from all the meteorological organisations around the world that would all show the same. Have you come across this in your 15 years of investigation? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:06 - Nov 21 with 1450 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:03 - Nov 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
It is possible that Pollution makes asthma worse, but it is not the cause, the anti-correlation is clear.
For information about the US EPA I think you should read this dread denier site.
The EPA under Obama was turned in to a very corrupt organisation, paying green organistaions to lobby them to create court cases to push Obama's agenda.
Here is the link to Steve Milloy's site.
https://junkscience.com/features/
ps I forgot another possible change that could have impacted our Immune systems, the Fluoridation of our drinking water to prevent tooth decay. Who knows what the really long term consequences may be? [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 11:33]
|
There are many things that we do without knowing the long term consequences, that's the thing about science, as I said earlier. Many things we take to be right and true at our current knowledge levels will be entirely disproved in decades to come.
We can only act on the knowledge we have now though, or we'd never do anything.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-54980602
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48875361
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/are-electric-cars-actually-worse-fo
EV cars, at current levels of knowledge are better but in 50 years time they could have proved to be worse. Such is life. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:41 - Nov 21 with 1442 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 13:44 - Nov 21 by Scotia |
I'm sure you have been reading climate change denial propaganda for 15 years, that doesn't constitute investigation to me.
If you understand the fundamentals and science very well why don't I need the metadata? I'm worried I've wasted years of my life scrutinising it now.
Also if you can fully understand the accuracy and performance of a Mat station from looking at data on a spreadsheet I've seriously wasted my time.
I'd suggest you visit a weather station and think for yourself why the data can't really be used totally "raw". The most easily accessible one in this area is in Victoria Park.
As I said consult a thesaurus, adjustment is a word used in this case to try and suggest fabrication. That is not the case.
Do you think measurements were as accurate 100 years ago as they are now?
You can post a dozen if you want, but to prove the data is fabricated you'd need long term records from thousands of stations from all the meteorological organisations around the world that would all show the same. Have you come across this in your 15 years of investigation? |
Why do you need the meta data to compare 3 charts?
The charts are the output of the Metadata supplied by NASA.
"Do you think measurements were as accurate 100 years ago as they are now? "
That old cannard, so do you believe that the analysts today know what the temperatures were 100 years ago more accurately than the people who were actully there taking the measurements.
Well as you are so knowledgable about Climate change have you worked through Thermodynamic calculations for Infrared Radiation Transfer?
Do you understand the difference in Radiation energy between solar radiation and Long Wave Infrared?
Do you understand what heats the oceans, which is where the energy that keeps the earth warm is stored?
Do you understand all the variables that are involved in Climate Change?
Do you understand them.
You can learn all that stuff on Climate denier sites.
As for your last comment that is laughable as you should know that they all share the same data and mostly the same calculations, the only odd one is GISS which uses 1200km for pairwising.
The UK also uses a different SST set for their global calculations.
Apart from GISS the next worse dataset is the Australian BOM which have a multitude of problems.
I am still waiting for your justification for the changes other than the ludicrous one of the accuracy of the measurements. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:05 - Nov 21 with 1428 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:41 - Nov 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
Why do you need the meta data to compare 3 charts?
The charts are the output of the Metadata supplied by NASA.
"Do you think measurements were as accurate 100 years ago as they are now? "
That old cannard, so do you believe that the analysts today know what the temperatures were 100 years ago more accurately than the people who were actully there taking the measurements.
Well as you are so knowledgable about Climate change have you worked through Thermodynamic calculations for Infrared Radiation Transfer?
Do you understand the difference in Radiation energy between solar radiation and Long Wave Infrared?
Do you understand what heats the oceans, which is where the energy that keeps the earth warm is stored?
Do you understand all the variables that are involved in Climate Change?
Do you understand them.
You can learn all that stuff on Climate denier sites.
As for your last comment that is laughable as you should know that they all share the same data and mostly the same calculations, the only odd one is GISS which uses 1200km for pairwising.
The UK also uses a different SST set for their global calculations.
Apart from GISS the next worse dataset is the Australian BOM which have a multitude of problems.
I am still waiting for your justification for the changes other than the ludicrous one of the accuracy of the measurements. |
Without metadata and knowledge of the site it is just lines on a graph. It is impossible to comment on that graph without it. You obviously don't realise that and I don't think you know what metadata is do you? It sort of a bit silly to even expect to be able to.
We know the equipment that was used and the limitations of it, so we know how wrong they were 100 years ago.
Well that is a classic diversion tactic, you've realised you've headed down a dead end so you are trying to demonstrate that the denier websites have taught you some revolutionary climate physics that even Prof Cox has overlooked. Believe it or not, they are following their own agenda. They're not a source of knowledge but propaganda.
Trust me they don't all share data, the Met Office are incredibly protective of their data, even charging other government organisations to access it. Many states met organisations are arms of the military. Do you think Russia would happily discuss and share their data with us and the USA? They have the same data because they are measuring the same thing.
Edit. This isn't a climate change thread, I don't want to turn it in to one. The good people of the forum will be bored to tears. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 16:08]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:47 - Nov 21 with 1424 views | A_Fans_Dad |
The RAC report is interesting, apart from them repeating the myth that 2019 3rd quarter renewables outperformed fossil fuels.
I have just downloaded the grid data for July 1st to September 30th and even with all the advantages of first take and most of the biomass being Drax wood chips, renewables were still below fossil fuels. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:59 - Nov 21 with 1423 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:05 - Nov 21 by Scotia |
Without metadata and knowledge of the site it is just lines on a graph. It is impossible to comment on that graph without it. You obviously don't realise that and I don't think you know what metadata is do you? It sort of a bit silly to even expect to be able to.
We know the equipment that was used and the limitations of it, so we know how wrong they were 100 years ago.
Well that is a classic diversion tactic, you've realised you've headed down a dead end so you are trying to demonstrate that the denier websites have taught you some revolutionary climate physics that even Prof Cox has overlooked. Believe it or not, they are following their own agenda. They're not a source of knowledge but propaganda.
Trust me they don't all share data, the Met Office are incredibly protective of their data, even charging other government organisations to access it. Many states met organisations are arms of the military. Do you think Russia would happily discuss and share their data with us and the USA? They have the same data because they are measuring the same thing.
Edit. This isn't a climate change thread, I don't want to turn it in to one. The good people of the forum will be bored to tears. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 16:08]
|
Yes, I understand that you can't justify the changes, nobody can.
The only person here using diversion is you, you cannot or refuse to answer a simple question.
As to your totally crap response about not sharing data, how the hell do you think NASA, NOAA, GISS and HADCRUT calculate a GLOBAL temperature.
Do think that they ignore the other countries in the world?
Want me to list for you the UK stations that NASA & therefore GISS hold
Jeese you are so arrogant & condescending. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:45 - Nov 21 with 1411 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:59 - Nov 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
Yes, I understand that you can't justify the changes, nobody can.
The only person here using diversion is you, you cannot or refuse to answer a simple question.
As to your totally crap response about not sharing data, how the hell do you think NASA, NOAA, GISS and HADCRUT calculate a GLOBAL temperature.
Do think that they ignore the other countries in the world?
Want me to list for you the UK stations that NASA & therefore GISS hold
Jeese you are so arrogant & condescending. |
Nobody can justify anything without the full picture. I'm not using divetsion, you give me it and I will.
I don't mean to seem arrogant, I've obviously hit a nerve. I wonder why?
So, what is metadata? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:04 - Nov 21 with 1406 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:45 - Nov 21 by Scotia |
Nobody can justify anything without the full picture. I'm not using divetsion, you give me it and I will.
I don't mean to seem arrogant, I've obviously hit a nerve. I wonder why?
So, what is metadata? |
What metadata do you need to make a simple decision about 3 or 4 lines on a chart, the station data, the location, long, lat, altitude etc?
I doubt that I can locate the complete history of sceen changes, when it went electronic etc. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:04 - Nov 21 with 1406 views | Scotia |
I completely agree.
The only time we can be absolutely certain about any current situation is with hindsight.
For now we have to act on the best evidence and worst case scenario. What harm could it do? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:16 - Nov 21 with 1401 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:04 - Nov 21 by Scotia |
I completely agree.
The only time we can be absolutely certain about any current situation is with hindsight.
For now we have to act on the best evidence and worst case scenario. What harm could it do? |
The good old precautionary principle.
What can possibly go wrong.
Stop investigating for the real cause.
Wrong treatment, actions.
Waste loads of money.
Not tackling the right things or more important things.
So not a lot really. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:22 - Nov 21 with 1400 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:47 - Nov 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
The RAC report is interesting, apart from them repeating the myth that 2019 3rd quarter renewables outperformed fossil fuels.
I have just downloaded the grid data for July 1st to September 30th and even with all the advantages of first take and most of the biomass being Drax wood chips, renewables were still below fossil fuels. |
Yes but as the knowledge and technology improve the renewables will one day overtake the fossil fuels.It's inevitable I think.
What you do is refute even the possibility that the technology will improve enough to make it possible.
If everybody had always thought like that, that where we are now is where we will always be, we would still be living in mud huts and throwing spears. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:30 - Nov 21 with 1398 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:22 - Nov 21 by Catullus |
Yes but as the knowledge and technology improve the renewables will one day overtake the fossil fuels.It's inevitable I think.
What you do is refute even the possibility that the technology will improve enough to make it possible.
If everybody had always thought like that, that where we are now is where we will always be, we would still be living in mud huts and throwing spears. |
Have you never heard of "if it aint broke don't try and fix it"?
Why do you want to totally degrade even further what was a perfectly good National Electrical Grid on the chance that the technology might overcome all the current problems? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:37 - Nov 21 with 1394 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:30 - Nov 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
Have you never heard of "if it aint broke don't try and fix it"?
Why do you want to totally degrade even further what was a perfectly good National Electrical Grid on the chance that the technology might overcome all the current problems? |
The ntional grid aint broke? cancer clusters, outages when the wrong weather strikes, hard to maintain especially in the wrong weather. It's hardly ideal having massive electricity pylons towering over houses where kids play.
You call it a degradation but yet again that is because you refuse to believe we can improve it. I've become a bit of a Luddite, mostly because of the technology being used to put people out of jobs but you rally are a Luddite, you don't want the tech to improve. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:37 - Nov 21 with 1394 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:04 - Nov 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
What metadata do you need to make a simple decision about 3 or 4 lines on a chart, the station data, the location, long, lat, altitude etc?
I doubt that I can locate the complete history of sceen changes, when it went electronic etc. |
If you don't know that how can you justify it not being changed? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:18 - Nov 21 with 1381 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:37 - Nov 21 by Scotia |
If you don't know that how can you justify it not being changed? |
As you are so reluctant to make the most simple observation I will make them for you, but before I do let me make it perfectly clear that I know the "adjustments" that they have self authorised and justified to themselves.
But when you assume that there mau be errors in some data you should know the correct way to scientifically and Statistically handle it and it is NOT by changing the raw data.
But obviously the People at NASA know much better than the totally incompetent people taking the temperatures at the start of the 20th century don't they?
If you look at the GISS version 3 of this station he so called Climate Analysts in 2019 did the following
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=406783250000&am
you will note that the adjustments between 1880 & 1922 have lowered the Raw temperatures by 0.5 to 1.0 degree, whereas the period between 1924 & 1960 show very little change. The period around 1965 has also been lowered by about 0.7 of a degree.
Now if you look at the second chart for GISS v4 which took over from v3 in 2018 you will see the they did the following
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=CUM00078325&
you will note that now the adjustments between 1880 & 1940 have lowered the Raw temperatures by nearly 2.0 whole degrees, yes another whole degree, including the 1924 period even the period between 1940 & 1960 has been adjusted down about 0.7 of a degree. Obviously the guys in 2020 (probably the same ones) thought that the guys in 2018 also had no clue about what the temperatures were.
But it gets even worse because they obviously didn't even know how to measure the temperature with their super duper weather station equipment in 2019, talk about incompetence all round.
The 2020 guys decided that the 2019 guys were wrong by no less than 0.5 of a degree too cold, so they adjusted not only the RAW data but also the adjusted data up from about 1955 onwards.
So please justify for me the Adjustments made, especially to ther RAW data and while you are trying to do that perhaps you would like to tell what they should have done with the data. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 19:48]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:50 - Nov 21 with 1371 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Yes, I tried to explain this human cost to Cat and scotia, plus the cost to the environment. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 09:24 - Nov 22 with 1327 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:18 - Nov 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
As you are so reluctant to make the most simple observation I will make them for you, but before I do let me make it perfectly clear that I know the "adjustments" that they have self authorised and justified to themselves.
But when you assume that there mau be errors in some data you should know the correct way to scientifically and Statistically handle it and it is NOT by changing the raw data.
But obviously the People at NASA know much better than the totally incompetent people taking the temperatures at the start of the 20th century don't they?
If you look at the GISS version 3 of this station he so called Climate Analysts in 2019 did the following
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=406783250000&am
you will note that the adjustments between 1880 & 1922 have lowered the Raw temperatures by 0.5 to 1.0 degree, whereas the period between 1924 & 1960 show very little change. The period around 1965 has also been lowered by about 0.7 of a degree.
Now if you look at the second chart for GISS v4 which took over from v3 in 2018 you will see the they did the following
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=CUM00078325&
you will note that now the adjustments between 1880 & 1940 have lowered the Raw temperatures by nearly 2.0 whole degrees, yes another whole degree, including the 1924 period even the period between 1940 & 1960 has been adjusted down about 0.7 of a degree. Obviously the guys in 2020 (probably the same ones) thought that the guys in 2018 also had no clue about what the temperatures were.
But it gets even worse because they obviously didn't even know how to measure the temperature with their super duper weather station equipment in 2019, talk about incompetence all round.
The 2020 guys decided that the 2019 guys were wrong by no less than 0.5 of a degree too cold, so they adjusted not only the RAW data but also the adjusted data up from about 1955 onwards.
So please justify for me the Adjustments made, especially to ther RAW data and while you are trying to do that perhaps you would like to tell what they should have done with the data. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 19:48]
|
Another diversion.
Answer my question. A sentence will do. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 09:28 - Nov 22 with 1326 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:50 - Nov 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
Yes, I tried to explain this human cost to Cat and scotia, plus the cost to the environment. |
You seem to have me confused with some sort of eco warrior. I'm not. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 10:26 - Nov 22 with 1319 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 09:24 - Nov 22 by Scotia |
Another diversion.
Answer my question. A sentence will do. |
You cannot justify the blanket adjustments can you?
It is not justifiable, when that is what has been done to some extent to practically all the temperatures in their database.
The lowering of the vast majority of past temperatures and the increase of later ones changes the Trend and therefore the amount of declared warming.
So Cox was completely wrong.
You also refuse to answer the correct way to handle data with possible errors.
You espouse to know about climate science but your answers show that you know S F A about the subject despite knowing about Weather Stations.
You merely repeat the consensus without looking at the actual data and the science.
Science is not consensus. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:13 - Nov 22 with 1305 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:50 - Nov 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
Yes, I tried to explain this human cost to Cat and scotia, plus the cost to the environment. |
This doesn't make EV cars wrong, it makes the so called green company wrong for using practical slave labour in dangerous conditions.
Maybe, besides all the virtue signalling around wanting to save the planet, governments across the world should be looking to improve peoples lives too? | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:15 - Nov 22 with 1304 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 10:26 - Nov 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
You cannot justify the blanket adjustments can you?
It is not justifiable, when that is what has been done to some extent to practically all the temperatures in their database.
The lowering of the vast majority of past temperatures and the increase of later ones changes the Trend and therefore the amount of declared warming.
So Cox was completely wrong.
You also refuse to answer the correct way to handle data with possible errors.
You espouse to know about climate science but your answers show that you know S F A about the subject despite knowing about Weather Stations.
You merely repeat the consensus without looking at the actual data and the science.
Science is not consensus. |
So, metadata? Can you justify why the data shouldn't have been changed? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
