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.
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.