Hubble tensions: a historical statistical analysis

Statistical analyses of the measurements Hubble-Lema\^itre constant $H_0$ (163 between 1976 and 2019) show that statistical error bars associated with observed parameter have been underestimated -- or systematic errors were not properly taken into account in at least 15-20\% measurements. The fact underestimation for is so common might explain apparent discrepancy values, which formally known today as Hubble tension. Here we carried out a recalibration probabilities this sample We find $x\sigma $ deviation indeed equivalent normal distribution to $x_{\rm eq.}\sigma $s frequency where eq.}=0.83x^{0.62}$. Hence, tension 4.4$\sigma $, estimated local Cepheid-supernova distance ladder cosmic microwave background (CMB) data, 2.1$\sigma terms frequencies, an probability $P(>x_{\rm eq.})=0.036$ (1 28). This can be increased up 2.5$\sigma worst cases claimed 6$\sigma tension, may anyway happen random fluctuation.