/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7091667
>>7091677
I'd be more inclined to listen to you hassle atmospheric scientists about their methodology if you maybe had some education or background in the field. Basically what you're saying is this:
>They're not allowed to make adjustments based on how temperature measuring stations change in location over the course of decades! The corrected numbers disagree with my opinions!
If you think the data are being dishonestly altered, go through their methodology and show where they made some adjustment that's not justified by the actual relocation of measurement sites. Until then, you're just making wild accusations unsupported by the evidence.

>Why Do All Adjustments Make the Rate of Warming Higher?
Not All Adjustments Do, You Moron. It's A Simple Selection Bias Wherein The Ones That Don't Never Get Whined About By You Guys, And We Scientists Are Intelligent Enough To Understand The Rationale Behind Such Adjustments And As Such Don't Bring Them Up. Do You Always Type In Such A Moronic Fashion?

Finally, if NASA funding is tied to global temperature readings, how hot must it have been in the 1960s? Pic related.

>>6286120
I give you a more useful graph.