“JimD, thank you for your reply. BEST detect and correct for inhomogeneities.
Once done there are none left. The imperfections have been removed.
Once there are no imperfections something is perfect.
QED.”
The imperfections will never be removed. Period. What you aim for
is LESS bad, closer to the truth.
################################
This does not mean the data is correct but it is correct to say that such data allows Steven to make the laughable claim that one can take any bit of the data, in any order, Pristine data, Dirty data, dogs breakfast data and have it all give the same perfect result.”
##############################
Wrong. That is not the claim.
1. Take the 110 sites blessed by WUWT as “pristine”. They
are built and mainted to a spec.
2. Using them construct a spatial model to predict the temp
at other locations ( in the US for this demonstration
3. Predict the temps at the locations of so called “bad” stations.
4. Your predictions will match the actual, with some error
but nothing remarkable.
OR
1. Construct an average from the 100 pristine sites
2. Construct an average from the bad sites
3. compare them
4. You’ll not see any substantial difference.
So they match, as I said, you inferred perfectly… nothing is perfect son
