The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated. [..] CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. More on this.
...and I am stuck for 6 months on a tough problem. Why don't I choose something easier, like faking stats?
ReplyDeleteWhat a fokken schmuck.
Totally. I coulda been a contenda.
ReplyDeleteGet into fuzzy statistics. That's the ticket.
ReplyDeleteYes = no. Why didn't I think of that?
ReplyDeleteYou getting the hang of Pepean logic, Mr Rot. Just make a bit of effort, and you'll become an expert at it.
ReplyDeleteLike clockwork: whenever Al Gore starts bloviating, a blizzard ensues. It's a theorem.
ReplyDelete