To: NormsRevenge
The scientists went beyond their normal doublechecking and took the unusual step of running computer climate models just to make sure that what we're seeing was real, Easterling said. What?
6 posted on
02/15/2007 6:38:20 PM PST by
AmishDude
(It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
To: AmishDude
I saw that too. Still scratching my head to figure out what he meant...there could be some implications of less than stellar scientific work if it means he had to tweak the computer program to match the stats.
21 posted on
02/15/2007 6:54:52 PM PST by
crazyhorse691
(The faithful will keep their heads down, their powder dry and hammer at the enemies flanks.)
To: AmishDude; 1Old Pro; aardvark1; a_federalist; abner; alaskanfan; alloysteel; alfons; ...
"
What?" You read that right; you can't trust the thermometer; you know how they lie; let a computer model tell you what you want to hear.
To: AmishDude
Don't be alarmed. It is an AP report, which means that it is about as scientific as a story in National Lampoon.
43 posted on
02/15/2007 7:33:51 PM PST by
bjc
(Check the data!!)
To: AmishDude
The scientists went beyond their normal doublechecking and took the unusual step of running computer climate models just to make sure that what we're seeing was real, Easterling said. Why believe an instrument that will give you a direct, unimpeachable reading when you can trust a computer model that can be tweaked until it tells you what you want to hear?
126 posted on
02/16/2007 7:34:04 AM PST by
AnOldCowhand
(The west is dead. You may lose a sweetheart, but you will never forget her - Charles Russell)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson