Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
I believe both sources can be right. EPA et al. use the data available & Dessler et al.'s criticism of those data (& the index) is warranted. I also wonder if you're aware that the data only covers 48 states - Alaska fx isn't incl. I also wonder why you left out this EPA-graphpic.twitter.com/uXHSDZpEBM
I see you don't actually want to say that authoritative sources (like USNCA, EPA and IPCC) is the correct place to start And then you add different chart showing ur preferred message But it shows hot nights and days, not heatwaves — so both wrong and example of cherry-picking
No, it was simply to counter-argue your cherry-picking because it adds perspective. Of course those sources are a good place to *start* - odd that you claim I say otherwise - but you denying the warranted criticism of both the data pre-1960 and the index is baffling to me.
My preferred message is the informed message. When you choose one graph with data bias, you should (if you want to avoid cherry-picking) add more info and disclaimers to avoid misleading your followers. I bet most of them never saw Dessler et al.'s points.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
Det var det vi skrev om sidste 
