On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify
as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon
"computer modeling".

In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined;
insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect
statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has
always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip]

Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ±
10%. (May not be valid in your state).

Who does fund the research in global warming? Are there never any
strings attached?
Follow the money.
As my mother-in-law says (with a rich Nova Scotian accent) "Best those
people go outside and stand in the wind and have the stink blown off
them."
Research money is often tainted-they either want you to prove them
right, or prove them wrong, depending on motive. So if you have to
'adjust' the numbers to ensure next year's funding....well...best go
outside and have the stink blown off ya...

Here's a line you'll likely hear: "Gentlemen, this presentation will
prove that if you give this department more money, we will supply the
data which will give the lawyers representing the people who are
sueing you, the ammunition they need to defeat you in court, resulting
in bankrupting your company.