Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote:

On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not
quali
fy
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
refine
d;
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?

National Science Foundation, Sometimes the US NAVY. Sometimes private
foundations. Rarely private corporations.

Are there never any
strings attached?

You better spend it the way you said you would or you'll never see
another dime. You better have a grant proposal that matches the biases of
the current group of grantors.

Follow the money.

Always!

Another cynical assumption with little proof to back it up. Sure
scientists can be influenced--but are you suggesting that the thousands
around the world who know about global warming have all been paid off?
Or would take the money if offered in every case? That's ridiculous.

Bob