But since you prefer to read published papers, I would point you to the >400 that they cite as evidence.
-
-
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
excellent then read http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00700d.html … and tell me your thoughts.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720 @GidMK
determine the number of stations required to differentiate between annual means to this level of precision http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720 @GidMK
@NASA and once you have told me how we can get global average yearly temps to within .13 deg c when they measure to .11 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
or how with approx 4500 stations meeting the QA/QC measurement we can say that you and I can talk about what we knoe W
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720
As mentioned before, I recommend you read the excellent Merchants of Doubt I imagine you'll learn quite a lot.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
do the analysis independent of commentary with the paper and the data set and well chat. But truly dont take my word for it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720
It's a bit funny, because this is one tiny issue that you have picked in a massive avalanche of supporting data.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
It's like when anti-vaxxers point to one study of 8 kids instead of looking at the enormous studies of millions.
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
its more like the one study that actually tested the piltdown man and oh shit wasnt "the missing link"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720
Nope, it's like you're obsessing over 30yo data when thousands of other tests have confirmed NASA's work.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.