Independent thinker, Libertarian, researcher, former data analyst.
Maker of memes ~ fact & parody.
I'm concerned about our climate ~ facts matter more than fear
The peer-reviewed data process didn't catch the muffed error margins in SCRIPPS paper on OHC.
Skeptics caught the mathematical errors, the pal-review process failed.
Peer-review - No one checked the data
ooooops
All science is based on skepticism.
[except climate science]
Science: Here's The Data, Here's The Math.
Prove Me Wrong!!
Climate Science: Why should I give you the data when you only want to find something wrong with it?
😒
@TestyBillLong@big_data_flow Yup, my point exactly.
The SST's before the 1980's are completely unreliable & include admitted fraud.
But then you'd have to read what their scientists actually said about their data
You look at the polished data, I looked at what was involved in *acquiring* the data.
@TestyBillLong@big_data_flow Do you know if the imaginary data was ever removed from the databases at CRU?
It affected temperature data for the southern hemispheric oceans.
That's what caused the admission. The *warming* was so high when actual data started coming in, even they knew it was ridiculous.
@TestyBillLong@big_data_flow Ok so the scientists who admitted fraudulent adding data in their database for sea surface temps, hasn't had any reckoning that you're aware of.
Ok... That's what I thought too.
Why do you think that is - no reckoning when he specifically admitted to making up imaginary data?