This is why I no longer trust the "accepted science" on climate change. While I am personally pro-environment.
These are people making claims that rely on trust. Why would they EVER publish false, or insufficiently analysed data? Just don't publish until the numbers are quadruple-checked.
On a topic this critical, there should be no shenanigans. It's (supposedly) just too important, yet, there they are, falsifying data.
More than that, NASA selectively edited climate data, to push global warming.
100% fact
This is why I no longer trust the "accepted science" on climate change. While I am personally pro-environment.
These are people making claims that rely on trust. Why would they EVER publish false, or insufficiently analysed data? Just don't publish until the numbers are quadruple-checked.
On a topic this critical, there should be no shenanigans. It's (supposedly) just too important, yet, there they are, falsifying data.
Kinda like the election, huh?
I scanned LOTS of the East Anglia climate model code that was leaked. I was a FORTRAN programmer on the Surveyor Lunar Lander project back in 1960's.
The code had LOTS of sections with comments of: "insert fudge factor here".
Fukin' fun and games -- and trillions of $$$ to extort.