Comment Re:Shocker... (Score 1) 278
As to significant digits, I'm sure you're right... I think my biggest problem is the idea of turning the entire data set into one number... I have a great suspecion of over simplification. I've seen that go horribly wrong in many situations.
An example you might be aware of was the 2008 credit crunch. Part of the issue there was that the banks had abstracted ALL risk in an investment to a single number. They had an equation that you'd key all the variables into and it would output a risk number.
Anyway... to get that figure required a lot of assumptions... certain variables and market properties were assumed to be a given... for example they assumed the market would always go up. Over time it does of course... or at least has always done so. However... whether your investments can survive the system crashing for a significant duration before recovering is another matter.
So that is just a general bias I have. I don't trust that sort of reduction. I'm struggling to think of any instance that I know really well where it didn't turn out to be very foolish.
As to weather instruments being better calibrated... not historically. Keep in mind they were for local weather and part of the reason they struck so many stations of the list was that they were getting temperature readings from certain stations that they didn't trust so they scrapped the station entirely.
Even in modern times I wouldn't be surprised if the stations are off by a degree one way or the other. It doesn't matter for the actual use of the station if it is off a degree. They wouldn't notice or care. If it says it's 86 degrees instead of 85 or 87... who's going to know or care?
Only the climate scientists are going to care about that and that's not why those stations were installed or why they're maintained.
As to denier. You either stop using that term or you're outing yourself as someone that has only interest in the political argument.
It would be like me referring to warmists as "grand wizards" or something. If you'll let me identify you with the KKK then I'll accept your attempt to associate me with Nazis. Otherwise I reject the term as a pathetic political ploy and any attempt to maintain the terminology will be taken as a declaration that you want to play political games. At that point, I'm 100 percent politics with you and will ignore any scientific argument utterly.