No. Nor do I say so. Can you not read very well?https://twitter.com/edrising/status/873517405900877824 …
-
-
Yes! It's the dark art of averaging.
-
Yes, indeed. Take very rough-and-ready data collected for a entirely different purpose, feed it through software models, and claim precision
-
With so many data from so many weather stations and analysed by different centres,all with the same results, we can be sure of the accuracy.
-
You've obviously never looked into this. We don't have independent sources of historical temperature, they are calibrated against each other
-
The corrections for things like time of measurement, types of thermometer are larger than the effects being measured.
-
Now, there need to be corrections for these factors-I've seen some sceptics claim that corrections are fraudulent which is obviously false..
-
But a lot depends on the accuracy of the corrections. Claiming the "instrumental record" is incontrovertible is just wrong.
-
Not incontrovertible but accurate to within the published margins of error for each global data set.
End of conversation
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.