/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8712596
>>>8711983
>>>8711990
>Just because you huff and cry doesn't make it a conspiracy. Altering and tampering old data is a pretty normal part of climatology.
FTFY

Never said there was a conspiracy. You're just engaging in pathetic Ad Hominem. What is going on is terrible statistical methodology.

>>8675572
>>Additionally, compared to 800,000 years of ice core data, the world temperatures have become much more stable.
>Yes, except for the past century of the fastest data tampering we've ever seen.
ftfy

>>8636321
>>863632
My definition of shitsource:

anything I don't like; even if its peer reviewed, or from documented data, or even from NASA GISS, the NOAA, the United States Historical Climate Network (USHCN) or other institutions.

Sigh. This is really pathetic. Nonsensical even.
And see here: >>8638099

>>8629609
>The way the data is plotted on the right is most definitely the way you plot climate data. You choose a baseline of average temperatures (~30 years), which you compare the data to, this is a standard statistical analysis and is completely valid, the fact that
> You choose a baseline average
Because showing the actual values shows how small variations are. In fact, they are on the same order as the "corrections" of the data. Pic related.

This Is Why Warmist Graphs Never Show The Non "Corrected" Data. Showing the uncorrected data shows that measurement uncertainty is as high as the temperature anomalies!

>So to recap: your sources are shit. The graph is nonsense and makes no sense, and you are in general a blathering moron who will eat up whatever nonsense is posted at WUWT without question.
More ad hominem. If its not UN IPCC certified for "TRUTH" I can ignore it.