| Locknuts said: I wasn't implying that they fudged the numbers. I was implying that they really don't understand the systems of the atmosphere enough to even make accurate computer models predicting future warming. They seem to have acknowledged this in the latest assessment report and aren't making computer model predictions anymore. In fact they really seem to have toned down the alarmism overall. I'm not sure if this is reflective of the latest evidence showing less need for alarm or if they have weeded out some of the activists that were authoring previous reports. |
No, they don't have a clue, hense why all the models have a fudge factor, and they cant' even remotely back check the models, and whilst they don't fudge the individual numbers, they do fudge the overall numbers, as they give differing source numbers differing weights, so a prime one is that they are now giving the readings from sea bouys and ship readings more than land based readings, so obviously this can lead to very differing results in what the 'global temperature' is. And honestly the ranges that they're measuring this is so small that error is a massive problem.
