Because, amongst other things, you wrote stuff like this:
where you missed the whole point. An anecdote is a single data point, dubious in itself (as you managed to grasp) and also dubious if it is selected by an observer and not forming part of a consistent suite of measurements.
An anedote is a single data point? Really!! I've never heard of that definition. I would describe a single data point as a 'datum'.
It was you who introduced the term 'anecdote', which usually means 'an amusing, fictional story'. The meteorological site I referred to appears to have used the best evidence available to them, including proxy data such as tree rings and ice-core data, as well as instrumental records when they became available in later centuries. The narratives and newspaper reports are used in the absence of scientific measurements and/or to confirm such measurements and give a broader picture.
Following is the introduction to the records listed on that site:
"Much of the information contained in these records must of necessity be 'tentative' to say the least! Up to about 1000 years ago, we only have archaelogical evidence to reconstruct the record: some Roman chroniclers provide cursory evidence for the Romano-Celtic / British era, but it is not until roughly from AD 800 that documentary records make a major contribution - and of course, the era of instrumental record doesn't really start until the 17th century, and even then, inconsistencies / errors in the instrumentation make the early record questionable.
Prior to the age of scientific enquiry, the climatological data have been reconstructed using 'proxy' data, such as tree ring records (dendroclimatology), ice-core sampling, estate records, tales of war and the administration of great kings, monastic lists etc."
https://www.booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htmBart has presented such data countless times but you don't seem to have got the message. Peter has it right when he says "How do you counter this kind of thinking? Is there any reason to even try?"
As I've mentioned before, a few times, I used to accept the narrative about the alarming consequences of rising CO2 levels. I had no reason to doubt it. I used to listen to interviews of famous scientists such as James Lovelock, expressing their concerns. I assumed that almost all scientists were of a similar opinion, and one of my topics of conversation among friends, on the issue of AGW, was, '
Why aren't we taking more positive action to reduce CO2 levels?' We know that electric cars are technologically feasible. 50 years ago in England, the milkman used to deliver the milk in the early hours of the morning, driving an electric, battery-operated van.
Why doesn't the government introduce a moratorium on the contstruction of petrol-driven vehicles, and encourage the development of the electric car which would take over, by decree, at a specific time in the future, say in 20 years time?You should now be able to see that any claims that
'I haven't got the message' are false.
