Jtomage":2dj5l8n6 said:
phil8192":2dj5l8n6 said:
"The science was and still is robust."
Only a fanboy or a fool would make such a statement, when it's been adequately demonstrated that the climate change "science" is all crap.
Don't try to lie to my plants. They don't read newspapers, watch television or listen to radio propaganda. When established plants in my garden bloom a month later than they did 5-10 years ago, they're telling us that it's colder than a decade ago, not warmer.
Your absolutely right, the science is absolutely crap. Plants tell all we should take data from the plants. Botany is the real science of looking at climate. Which is why I disregard all weather reports that do not include the weather person talking to a plant.
Also I dont trust these Physicist and Evolutionary Biologist, there all liars. If you really wanted to know what is happening in the world all you have to do is cut open a pig and read its entrails to figure out that this "God Particle" is a lie and so is the Periodic Table. Matter of fact science did NOT help in creating of the computer, God made it.
Surely, you're joking, Jtomage. If you knew ANYTHING AT ALL about computer modeling, you'd know that iterative algorithms tend to diverge due to round-off error, and the results of long range projections are completely unreliable. Since most of what the CRU has put out is based on computer modeling, it's all highly suspect. You also must have missed the lesson in school when they talked about the scientific method. The successful physicists, evolutionary biologiststs and botanists are successful because they observe nature instead of staring at a computer screen.
NOAA provides the weather forecasts in the U.S. They're lucky if they get it right 3-5 days in advance; the technology for predicting the weather or the climate beyond that simply does not exist, so why should the CRU or anyone else pretend that they have a better crystal ball?
