re: The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

quote:

---

You realize that distribution of temperature adjustments gives absolutely no actual data that's helpful. I

---

That’s not true. As I noted above, we can quantify measurement and model errors and the margin around that error. So if the adjustments are within the quantified range and distraction, that is helpful, even if it doesn’t give a complete picture.

quote:

---

If the points the lowered were early in the century and the points the raised were in later years, you are doubling your trend

---

Well even if that’s true, that in and of itself doesn’t tell use whether those changes are valid and justifiable or not. What is important is if the error and empirical evidence supports the adjustments. If the evidence suggests early instruments and their measurement had an upward bias, then it’s justifable to adjust them downward.

Like I said earlier, I had always been skeptical of those adjustments, but when I read one of the methodology guides, I found their rationale to be valid and evidence-based. That doesn’t mean their own biases didn’t have some impact within the range of possibilities, but the idea that it’s a hoax and the models are fraud, is not evidenced in a broad look at the adjustments themselves.

In order to support the fraud argument, someone would have to actually independently analyze the data and determine that they either didn’t follow their methodology and/or their methodology was not supported by the evidence.