Thousands of scientists across the world are all "in on it"? If you hypothesized they were wrong or suffering from confirmation bias, I could take it seriously. But when you go full-tin-hat, everything else you say turns to dust.
-
-
That is correct, heat island goes only in one direction. I grant the other sides argument that correlation can b created between anything, in much the same way NFL Ks FG% highly correlates to the time period. It may just be noise in the analyzed period but I find it questionable.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The claim not been debunked. The adjustments are almost perfectly correlated with the atmospheric increase in CO2 (R2 = .98) which means raw data has been adjusted to match a theory. This cannot be a coincidence, as anyone who has taken Stats 101 in high school should know.pic.twitter.com/NxACT2nkKJ
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
...which is why heat-island based temperature readings should be thrown out, not 'adjusted for.' A fair question would be why new thermometers are being placed in heat islands. Here's another take: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Indeed...pre-2000 temps are adjusted down, post-2000 temps are adjusted up, for example. ~RT: "The adjustments are in both directions."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If you want to build in human "vice" to Science, you can start with adjusting "bad" data instead of tossing them out and issuing new measurements.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.