1/ more than 7,000 RTs for this https://twitter.com/alxrdk/status/1295016785180270594 …
-
-
The Nature editor said the argument in my paper was not fleshed out. I said it was a plausible, stylized interpretation. I now have a Nobel Prize.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Someone called him out for mixing data with different resolutions and is getting a round scolding that amounts to "lying to the proles is noble and necessary"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm not a sperg like some of y'all - I'm not going to delve into the data (and I'll suffer a credibility penalty for my laziness). But conceptually, I have a pretty damned basic criticism of this kind of shit - and few folks answer it well.
-
That is when you mix data derived from multiple different sources - i.e. tree rings/ice cores for really old temperature data, crappy thermometers/etc... for late 1800s/early 1900s data, and improving (but not identical) equipment for more modern data... isn't that a problem?
- 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.