/sci/ - Science & Math

>global warming
>warming
>warm

>>8627874
>climate change data from 1850
>1850
Anyone familiar with the scientific setting and instrumentation should realize that your data is only as good as it's "Calibration" and how well it can be recreated.

Do we really think that common calibration techniques across several instrumentation tech levels, across different measurement processes carried over with accuracy through the decades? I would argue that all temperature data pre-1960 before the advent of climate satellites are unreliable at BEST.

This unreliable nature of instrumentation/calibration is further compounded by the admittedly tiny delta T that is presented (0.5C/1F).

But lets take a step back, does a temperature change of 0.5C or 1F even exist? and if so does it really show in this data set? and if so how do you account for this when there are so many outside factors accounting for this tiny temperature change?

When you recognize the scientific uncertainty associated with this agenda being presented, you cannot help but recognize it overtly political *(and unscientific) nature.

>>8424669
It's bullshit.