Quote:
Originally Posted by sounding
It's not who -- it's all about the data -- that's what science is all about. When you look at the verification data for all the (over 100) climate models, they all run too hot (except the one Russian model). If the IPCC and their models department were selling a product, they would have failed long ago -- about 30 years ago -- but the media never tells you the models are failures. However, brains behind the failing models tried to white wash their failings by giving the creator of the worst climate model the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics. That's like giving the gold medal to the last person to finish a race. The entire man-made climate-change narrative is corrupt. The data does not support the theory. In reality, Russian should have received the Nobel Prize -- but then that would have very embarrassing to the IPCC.
|
You are interpreting data. Personally, I am not competent to compete with the analysis of the experts when interpreting climatology data. And most of the world and most of the experts (by a wide margin) agree with the current conclusion that it is man-made, it is past the tipping point and it is going to get worse.
Please provide ANY reference to accredited sources that say "the entire man-made climate-change narrative" is corrupt. You seem very sure, so I assume you can provide that link or at least a named reference.