Warming is cool
Quote:
Originally Posted by ridetheworld
So you're saying they are false? Or do you believe NASA, et al along with those who carried out that research are wrong?
Evidence?
But are you disputing that the link between Co2 and climate change or the problems with computer modeling? In your mind could it be you are more likely to believe an amateur in Australia because it conforms with your worldview, more than agencies like the International Panel on Climate Change, the MET, NASA, etc? By the way that blog comes across as false, shrill, loaded and cherry picked, to say the least.
|
It is the case that one blog doth not a summer make.
It is necessary to read into the JoNova blog in order to see the content; it is well enough organised to find the information.
Elsewhere, the debate is lively and continuing:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ata-tampering/
Quite frequently, the discussions appended to blogs continue to delve into the items under consideration in an informed manner.
Such discourse is very up to date in this bit of that website:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ering-in-2014/
Regarding NASA:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ience-at-nasa/
So, yes, there is dissent about the computer modelling; in both the potential for corruption of the raw data, and in the modelling itself - that latter feature has not been mentioned in here up to now, but it certainly has been elsewhere.
The very old computing adage, GIGO, comes to mind, but even that does not recognise that the electronic model in the computer brain has to have some level of credence.
Reference can be made to Steven Goddards' professional work in writing computer software for some input about this aspect.
Of course there is ongoing dissent about the alleged corrolation between CO2 and the potential for warming the planet; it will be a much poorer world when there is no dissent within science, as has been mentioned earlier.
__________________
Dave
|