/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7094585
>I'm commenting on the ethics of adjusting them in the first place.
Not related to an ethical accusation. Nope, no implication that I'm making an ethical accusation. Whatever.

Your refusal to confront the tainting of data with UHI where I give you the scientific sources is to be expected. Instead you give "just so" excuses. I pointed you to an exacting methodology that checked for correct instrumentation, placement etc. A way to compare good with bad data, showing a significant UHI effect. But you DESPERATELY avoid dealing with it. Instead, you deliberately obfuscate. Then you simply become boring.

Yes, you have gotten me bored. And long term drought trends. Thanks for bringing that up picture related.

Climate Change has been falsified.
Oh, that's right:
If prediction is correct => Climate Change is TRUE
If prediction is wrong => we need $$$ for a better model, but Climate Change is TRUE