I may have to use Gavin Schmidt's response: "It's complicated". Here is a fact-check article explaining this a bit better than my original post. My understanding is that homogenization is to REMOVE BIAS, not bias it to fit warming theory.https://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/ …
-
-
Don't forget all the skeptics around your predictions the last few years!
-
Not to mention 100% of political experts were 99% certain Trump could never gain even the Republican nomination much less the Presidency. But a comic strip artist predicted it almost from the beginning. Are experts humans too?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The experts were peer reviewed! Why didn't you stay at the bank and learn sign language? (I know, a poor attempt at humor)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Now I know the source of the skepticism. What happens when the experts are right, but you don't heed them? It works in both directions.https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/870395972978855936 …
-
"Experts".
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I am not willing to gamble on our children's future either. There is a sensible path to renewable and sustainable energy and that will come to pass starting 2020. Virtually all the world countries acknowledge that. There will be a Democrat in office in 2020 - I predict.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You seem to be mistaking first hand experience with recognized experts in their field with an analogy
End of conversation
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Who is stating that? No science is ever 100% set. But good enough to predict. Question is do we want to flood the low-lands and handle the migration crisis or do we rather want a steadier situation?
- Show replies
-
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.