• Glitchington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah yes, approximation is not a record therefore we cannot consider it a factor at all, regardless of it being our best estimate given our current data. You’re right, let’s throw it all out and opt for ignorance. 🙄

      • sadreality@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        i suggested no such thing, you made that last part up for yourself.

        i am just highlighting that comparing data from different sources/methods of collection is not proper apples to apples comparison. but sure have a melt down over it lol

        • Glitchington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          No you’re acting like we can’t use this as a data point when it’s the data we have. It may not align apples to apples, but we have a recognizable trend that aligns with/exceeds predictions. I don’t see the point in doubting the data we have.

        • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m sure we would take ice samples from the modern era, ya know if any new ice was being deposited. Other systems are pretty easy to correlate 1:1.

          Just because something isn’t digital doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or we can’t take observations from it.

          • sadreality@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t mean digital. Just daily readings with a thermometer across the globe v 1cm or whatever per year of a core reading for that location or a few of them.