Whata Fool wrote:

What does it matter what "corrected" or adjusted data shows,
if the raw data is known to not be correct, then it should simply
be discarded.

Why?

That's like saying that if someone loses a hundred pounds on
a diet and then finds that the scale was five lbs low and he
went from 330 to 230 instead of going from 335 to 235, we
should discard the claim that he lost a hundred pounds.

Please exlpain your reasoning.

wrote:




Whata Fool wrote:

What does it matter what "corrected" or adjusted data shows,
if the raw data is known to not be correct, then it should simply
be discarded.

Why?

That's like saying that if someone loses a hundred pounds on
a diet and then finds that the scale was five lbs low and he
went from 330 to 230 instead of going from 335 to 235, we
should discard the claim that he lost a hundred pounds.

Please exlpain your reasoning.


Apparently you don't understand the word "adjusted".


Cherry picking the locations to use and then adjusting some
of the data does not give a more believable result.


Haven't you read where the city readings are adjust upward
instead of downward for UHI?