It's contrarian when you point out that the vast majority of the modeling, and data collection practices, have been either inaccurate or manipulated.
NOAA has repeatedly published data from weather stations located next to heat sources, despite claiming to account for it. They also still collect readings using pencil and snail mail in some cases.
Additionally, the community of climate researchers routinely ignore data that goes against the grain, either by smoothing using opaque algorithms or by ignoring it altogether (like hot weather reports from the 18/1900s published in newspapers, some of which exceeded 'maximum recorded temperatures' in the last 20 years).
> NOAA has repeatedly published data from weather stations located next to heat sources
Google "site:realclimate.org weather station heat island" - you will find discussions going back to 2004. This is a well known problem, which climate science has acknowledged and corrected for, since a long time before Trump was a thing.
Go ahead, just show us that alternative model and we test how its predictions fare with past and future data. Oh but you won't do that, because making actual predictions and representing reality isn't really the goal, right?
It's contrarian when you point out that the vast majority of the modeling, and data collection practices, have been either inaccurate or manipulated.
NOAA has repeatedly published data from weather stations located next to heat sources, despite claiming to account for it. They also still collect readings using pencil and snail mail in some cases.
Additionally, the community of climate researchers routinely ignore data that goes against the grain, either by smoothing using opaque algorithms or by ignoring it altogether (like hot weather reports from the 18/1900s published in newspapers, some of which exceeded 'maximum recorded temperatures' in the last 20 years).
> NOAA has repeatedly published data from weather stations located next to heat sources
Google "site:realclimate.org weather station heat island" - you will find discussions going back to 2004. This is a well known problem, which climate science has acknowledged and corrected for, since a long time before Trump was a thing.
Could you provide sources?
Go ahead, just show us that alternative model and we test how its predictions fare with past and future data. Oh but you won't do that, because making actual predictions and representing reality isn't really the goal, right?
Much easier to bathe in rethorical figures.