/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9842944
>If it wasn't missing data then it was adjustments to the data, but adjustments have cooled the global warming trend. See >>9842301. If you actually look at all the adjustments and don't just cherrypick them as Goddard did, you'll see that adjustments made the 1930s warmer.
Oh I see, it was just "adjustments". Now where were NASA getting their adjustments from regarding temperatures in the early 1900s? Did they travel back in time?
>How is it not science? Computer models are used in most fields of science.
Computer models are not physical reality.
>Yes, data collected in the present tells us about the climate of the past, which tells us what the climate was like before we started dumping CO2 into it. Thank you for agreeing with me.
And yet data in the past is being changed, or "adjusted" as you like to call it.
>Reproduce what? All scientific theories produce testable predictions. We are currently testing whether models based on our current understanding of the climate can accurately project the temperature. So far, it has. I don't understand what your objection is.
Why is global warming a bad thing again? These are the predictions we're interested in.
>This is just the reservoir effect, which is well known by scientists and easily accounted for. And attacking radiocarbon dating does not affect evolutionary theory. There are plenty of other methods of dating that are more appropriate for evolutionary timescales. Why are you on the science board?
Pic related.
>Published what?
Exactly.