Name one thing you think I believe that is different from what you believe. (Watch how hard this is.)
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @seriouslysushi
Piece of cake - that the number of institutions and scientists throughout the world with access to temperature anomaly data sets is limited enough to give pause about any ~97% consensus claims being robust.
4 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @sciencepolicia @seriouslysushi
How many have access to Michael Mann's data? And why would he consider it proprietary if it agrees with published data sets?
4 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @seriouslysushi
Mann's? Probably a handful. I know a different handful of folks spread across the world (don't feel like counting how many dozens of people) who contributed to the other proxies in the PAGES 2k network. Who found the same hockey stick.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
If anything, switching to proxies vs the instrumental record (which I originally thought was the object of your musings) spreads out the network of "gatekeepers" dramatically - every expedition to get an ice core, every tree ring group, every coral study, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Does that make sense, Scott? I worry your followers only saw your tweet, and so missed the fact that Mann and a handful of others aren't the sole gatekeepers of data (reconstructions, really) on whether current temps are the highest in at least the past millennium.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sciencepolicia @seriouslysushi
How much human “correction” to the data is there?
5 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @seriouslysushi
But that's a different question, right? I mean, I'd like to discuss that, too. But please don't abandon the gatekeeper/trust thread entirely. When you do science, there's a TON of corrections ;) Calibration, bias subtraction, it's the bulk of a paper's data section.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sciencepolicia @seriouslysushi
What percent of the 97% of scientists backing climate change personally collected measurements from each of the sources/methods worldwide? (This discussion is not optimized for Twitter.)
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @seriouslysushi
A tiny fraction - not a lot. But there's enough (~100s), spread across the globe, independent institutions, etc, that it's not "faith" or "trust" that these ~100s of independent folks aren't being careful with their measurements. (W.r.t. Twitter, agreed!)
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
All of those hundreds have personally gathered worldwide temperature data from each source? (Literally traveling to each?)
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @seriouslysushi
??? No one person collects every proxy. Different teams go to different sources. So we have ~100s of people who can vouch for ~100s of proxies, but not one person who can vouch for them all. Does that make sense?
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Having ~100s of people vouching for ~100s of proxies, while not having a single one who can vouch for every single one, is still robust against fraud/misconduct/etc to the point that "trust" and "faith" are irrelevant.
1 reply 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.