Brewbeer Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago 12 hours ago, ChescoWx said: I have emailed them why do you believe the methodology they have employed is incorrect? is it because it results in a narrative and call for action that you oppose for unspecified reasons? can you provide some reasonable explanation even if you only have 33% of the data? that's an incredible amount of data, surely there MUST be SOMETHING systemic in the methodology you can point to that is scientifically invalid? your continued evasiveness on this issues is boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted 14 minutes ago Share Posted 14 minutes ago 56 minutes ago, Brewbeer said: why do you believe the methodology they have employed is incorrect? is it because it results in a narrative and call for action that you oppose for unspecified reasons? can you provide some reasonable explanation even if you only have 33% of the data? that's an incredible amount of data, surely there MUST be SOMETHING systemic in the methodology you can point to that is scientifically invalid? your continued evasiveness on this issues is boring No evasiveness just want to see the deeper details and actual figures calculated that support these decades later adjustments to the raw data. I am a numbers guy by training so love digging into the supporting calculations that will support the adjustments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now