Quote:
Originally Posted by Cedars
|
Ahhh... Yes. The classic "Yawn" argument. That's always hard to beat. It's almost as awe-inspiring as the argument I used to get from the 4 and 5 year olds I taught where they would respond, "So?"
I'm sorry. I showed where your response to the analogy was flawed, as it would need to apply to EVERY single statistic and temperature reading and demonstrate that they were ALL wrong and ALL adjusted. Where exactly does this link you shared demonstrate that every single temperature measurement we've made is faulty? Your link itself acknowledges the limited scope of the issue. I will quote them here:
in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have many long period stations than [sic] span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted
Readers should note the key word "many." That does NOT mean "ALL." Ergo, your response fails to demonstrate that all temperature readings are faulty. Also, how do they quantize many? I'm not seeing that anywhere. Do they mean 2, maybe 6? How about 100? Do they mean 1,000? Gosh... Many is SUCH a descriptive scientific term.
Also, can you please point out to me where they had their assumptions and conclusions peer-reviewed for merit? I seem to be missing that on their site, but considering the unshakable nature of your tone, I presume they are there somewhere and that this is something more than handwaving.
Not only does your dismissive response fail to address my point, but neither does the reference you shared.
