Well I guess that's it for climate science, no weather stations before 1850. Tree rings? Ice cores? People writing down "wow there was no rain for 3 months our God must be pissed"? Sorry, doesn't count I'm afraid.

I'm sorry for being unprofessional but this comment really struck a nerve with me. The idea of trying to move climate science into the domain of the unprovable/undisprovable by claiming that there is simply no way to have data from before 1850. Do you have a specific problem with tree rings? Their statistical significance? A confounding variable that has not been taken into account?

There are always these strange very dismissive comments that show people on the opposition of climate change have no clue what they are talking about. A one-liner on an internet forum does not disprove climate change. But it intends to muddy the waters and confuse.

And with much fewer measuring stations back then, e.g. ships, satellites and weather balloons. With different technologies and precision.