You probably answered this more than once, but do we have enough non-adjusted measuring stations to know how the non-adjusted ones alone look?
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JSegor and
Absolutely. USHCN is a very high quality network of more than 1,200 stations - many of which have data back to at least 1895. I have done experiments using odd numbered stations, even numbered stations, and randomly numbered stations. All produce nearly identical graphs.
4 replies 11 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @Tony__Heller @SteveSGoddard and
Doesn't the entire argument come down to whether or not climate scientists agree the non-adjusted measurements tell the story you say they tell?
8 replies 4 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JSegor and
Look at this graph from the 2017 National Climate Report, which has disappeared in the current assessment. In the 2018 assessment, they hide all heatwave data prior to 1960. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ pic.twitter.com/ErGJp4yMfC
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
2 replies 13 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @Tony__Heller @SteveSGoddard and
"Hide" suggests a motive that is possible but not in evidence. The counter to your claim, I understand, is that they adjusted historical data and publicly showed their work and their reasons. You would have to criticize their adjustment reasons to be persuasive.
9 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JSegor and
I can do that easily. But why is the onus on me to prove that their data tampering (which precisely aligns with the increase in CO2) is incorrect? In an engineering environment, someone who wanted to tamper with data would have to prove tremendous justification.
6 replies 8 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @Tony__Heller @SteveSGoddard and
"Onus" isn't a legitimate complaint when trillions of dollars and millions of lives are on the line. If you can bring light to the topic, that's all that matters. The counterclaim is that the adjustments were NOT all in the direction of fitting the CO2 curve. Please explain.
7 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JSegor and
An inadequate supply of energy in the future as a result of poorly thought out policy, would directly threaten billions of lives. I see no evidence to support your assumption that millions of lives are dependent on belief in the credibility of climate scientists.pic.twitter.com/tOcVpFYdyo
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
5 replies 15 retweets 33 likes -
Replying to @Tony__Heller @SteveSGoddard and
That isn't my claim. My claim is that getting this wrong costs millions of lives no matter which direction is the wrong one.
9 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
My claim is that making the wrong decision either way is expensive in money and lives. You described a correct decision, hypothetically.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I would not be surprised. Shifting of the magnetic North Pole is a bit creepy. We are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of 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.