|
| ▲ | NicuCalcea 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > “On record” usually means since we started recording history , at least 5k years ago. I'm a journalist who has published "highest/lowest on record" statistics tens, if not hundreds of times, and I've never heard of anyone thinking it means "since Herodotus" or anything like that. |
| |
| ▲ | tonymet 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | How would readers know the reference point unless you inform them. Of course they will defer to colloquialisms . In some cases 5000 years , some 1000 years . With something as broad and impactful as this, they certainly assume more than 150 years . |
|
|
| ▲ | genewitch 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| and scientists edit the historical temperatures because of, and i hope you can see my eyeroll here "anomalous readings" - but they're overwhelmingly erroneous in only one direction. that's strange. |
| |
| ▲ | tonymet 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Given the amount of noise and normalization , I would like to see that claim better qualified. That’s what I’m calling attention to. Being more formal with the claims , and transparent about the records origins |
|
