Sign into an existing account

Computer models isn't science.

Ffs you get one constant wrong.
You leave out one variable and millions of lines of code becomes worthless.

Since filing when has science been about soothsayer and tea readings.

They don't know the fuking future nor should they be pretending to.

How about looking at their climate predictions track records and using that as emperical evidence to Stfu?

Lol. It's more of the same fearmongering with all of the same shaky modelling.

How the fuck do they know it's rising if they admit their models don't work...


...AND they remove hundreds of physical measuring stations, and the ones that remain are known to be flawed.


https://www.foxnews.com/science/distorted-data-feds-close-600-weather-stations-amid-criticism-theyre-situated-to-report-warming



Logic loop detected Error*

"However 99% of scientists agree that the Earth is warming". WITH SHIT DATA. GIGO.

For EVERY scientist who ADMITS they DON'T KNOW, there is a doucebag liberal "sceintist" who claims THEY DO, for a boatload of money, and EXCUSES for ANY discrepancies, who ALSO don't KNOW what KNOWING IS (liberal) who PROBABOLY got into SCIENCE school because they demanded to be INCLUDED, and PROBABLY demanded a TROPHY every day.

I remember doing research into multivariate computer modeling years ago. At the time it was considered a doable task to model two variables with great precision. Add a third variable and all the supercomputing power in the world could not perform the analysis with ANY degree of certainty.

Now imagine how many variables there are to deal with in creating a model for the climate one year into the future. Now image 100 years in the future. Hell, their computer models for the current weather are getting less reliable every year despite having better measuring equipment.

"Trust the science you guys" So these ecofags have been chimping out over faulty computer model stuff. Reminds me of y2k bug when everyone was freaking out.