You're clearly not arguing in good faith, so I'll just leave it with this:

> and not the more standard explanation for minute-to-minute temperature rises of the sun coming out

It was a cloudless day.

I mean, it's better faith in the original argument which was a bunch of ludicrous FUD blaming measurement error for climate change, as if thermometers hadn't been located near heat islands and airports for decades and crank blogs had a better idea how to deal with measurement error than meteorologists. The irony is I could actually make a better argument for immigration being a factor in climate change (moving to a more economically developed country really does increase your carbon footprint...) but that would involve actually acknowledging it's an issue and other people cause it too...

If you had an actual answer for what made the temperature higher on that day at that site (and 46 other sites) than it had ever been there or anywhere else (including all the other airports and heat islands) even before aircraft allegedly landed, and what Typhoon operations have to do with immigration anyway, you wouldn't be stuck repeating the unsupported claims of a political blog about the absence of cloud (the Met Office recorded cloud coverage of 1 oktas at 3pm at that site that day, but I guess Chris Morrison who wasn't there and doesn't exactly hide his partisanship is wayyy more reliable than the weather station's lidar)

▲

card_zero a day ago | parent [-]

I'd be happier if you'd thrown in some concession like "I admit data is sometimes bad quality". That wouldn't mean agreeing with your opponent's implicit denial that any warming is happening. Your side doesn't have to be perfect in order to be in the right, and if you claim infallibility it looks less credible, to me. Is it more important to laugh at this guy, than to be scrupulous?

It may spoil an entertaining deliberate confusion, but you know the airports with the jets, and the cities full of immigrants, were clearly stated as separate from the start: "two sources of corruption ... the first ... the second".

	▲	notahacker a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I haven't claimed infallibility though, I've even explicitly pointed out that if we choose to take the climate sceptic blog's claims that 3 planes landing some distance away from the weather station added 1.3 degrees to the RAF Coningsby temperature seriously it was still the hottest day ever recorded in that place before the planes landed, and in lots of other places too. Immigrants were explicitly linked to supposed airport-induced measurement error "as population goes up due to immigration...jet travel goes up and this causes more traffic which warms the air at these weather stations" in the original post and doubled down on by these immigrants supposedly being "a primary driver of data difficulties in climatology". I found it amusing that the example posed was a RAF base...
	▲	pasquinelli 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I'd be happier if you'd thrown in some concession like "I admit data is sometimes bad quality". "be reasonable, meet them halfway."