re: #320 Walter L. Newton

Because, most of the temperature data that has been compiled in the numerous datasets, like Harcrut3, have come from the same 4 to 5 sources…

But that’s where I’m confused. I’m trying to figure out your argument, not refute it. I’m not sure what I’m “trying.”

You’re saying that the unreliability of the CRU data and models is why there is room for speculation. I’m tentatively agreeing with you for the sake of argument and suggesting we discount ALL CRU data. Let’s completely write them off! No loss to me.

But then I’m pointing out that there are, as you said, “4 to 5 other sources,” that have nothing to do with CRU, that still back up their models. Independent sources, that pre-date CRU’s questionable modeling.

Are you saying those 4 or 5 original sources are now all unreliable? Did CRU’s shenanigans with the data somehow go back in time and corrupt the original data?

Did CRU erase their data as I’ve seen you previously claim? Or is the data from those 4-5 original sources that you’re now retroactively discounting? I’m confused. You’re being inconsistent or not explaining yourself well - one or the other.