The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 5
th, 2020 at 7:55am:
My argument isn't an "appeal to authority" it is an "appeal to expertise"
An "appeal to authority" is also known as an "appeal to expertise". I would have thougtht that you would have known that.
"An expert opinion, or an appeal to authority is often used for the basis of an argument: if someone says “x” is true, and that someone is an expert, then “x” must be true (Doos, n.d .). In other words, the arguer argues that he is right because he has the opinion of an expert."
http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/psych2015/projects/chapter/expert-opinionappea...In my other link it also
inter alia called upon the expertise.
The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 5
th, 2020 at 7:55am:
Now last time I checked, Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO, NASA, Met Office and countless other scientific organisations are experts in their field.
You haven't shown that. Merely parroted something.
The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 5
th, 2020 at 7:55am:
So if you are so sure you are right why don't you stop wasting our time here, p1ss off and start explaining to NASA why they are wrong.
Oh dear jumped ship from BoM to NASA.
NASA still lists Cook et al 2013 as saying 97% of scientists agree with AGW. It didn't.
QED
BTW- you have once again shown your lack of comprehension. you have argued, somewhat weakly, that BoM
need to homogenise temperatures generally, with which I disagee. But I asked a specific question to whit what reason is there for BoM to adjust temperatures for "staistical" reasons? And that is the one you have studiously avoided.
Forum
Pages: 
