Discussions around the precision of historical temperature measurements raise questions about the reliability of averaging methods used in climate science. Critics argue that claiming an average temperature from the late 19th to early 20th century with a precision of 0.15°C is implausible, given the limited number of thermometers and the vast areas not monitored. The debate centers on the concepts of instrument uncertainty and calibration errors. It is noted that while random errors can be reduced through averaging multiple readings, instrument uncertainty remains a significant factor that does not diminish with increased measurements. The conversation also touches on the importance of using diverse scientific data, such as dendrochronology and ice core samples, to support the hypothesis of climate warming, suggesting that multiple disciplines corroborate the findings of temperature data. Overall, the discourse highlights the complexities of measuring and interpreting historical climate data, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of statistical methods in climate research.