/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9110869
>So your response to the fact that all the adjustments have created a net DECREASE in the global temperature trend is to post about one kind of adjustment in two states.
Bullshit. When your so-called adjustments fundamentally alter primary data to such an extent that it is not even close to the original, that is perceived as cooking the books or data fiddling by normal people.
>What exactly did you think was relevant here?
A link suggesting NOAA is data fiddling which is business as usual for climate science.
>Did you just post the first denier blog taking about adjustments and call it a day?
Attacking the source up to two times (denier, blog); I thought you didnt like this way of arguing.
>Let me reiterate since you seem incapable of addressing the argument:
Ad hominem
>how can you argue climatologists are making up these adjustments to create global warming when the adjustments reduce global warming?
Nobody is falling for your deception regardless how many times you can repeat your mantra. Most people who read this are fully aware LIA, MWP, Roman warming, and no doubt various others are flattened out to acquire hockeystick graphs. Then there are the US and Greenland temperatures that do not display any warming at all that are also flatout ignored since those are anomalous to the AGW doctrine.