Its lent; I gave up theologyweb along with a lot of other things. I post only because its weird to stumble upon a discussion happening in absentia.
The short answer to lack of update is lack of time. I was already short on it when I started, and now I've gotten new responsibilities at work. I don't think its realistic for me to finish this anymore. When I get home I'm exhausted. Its unfortunate.
It was a very small scope project, just objectively examine the adjustments made and whether they were all in favor of Global Warming, and have a discussion about all of them. It wasn't to reproduce, and justify, and examine the entire field of climate science. People here seems to be expecting it to be that, which is a bit odd.
I won't deal with the suspicion by Mountain Man that climatologists have secretly and covertly manipulated even the archived data. I don't know why you find that persuasive Teal or why you consider me not dealing with that 'extremely sloppy' if all I'm doing is examining the calibrations. That scope would be massive and difficult. And honestly Teal, if you don't think that I'm doing in this thread has value if I don't do that, then I'm not sure I think there's any reason for me to continue.
My scope was specifically limited to examining the calibrations. Why they were made, and whether, as has been claimed, they were all, always, in favor of Global Warming.
I'd love to continue it, but frankly, at this stage. I'm out of time so I can't.
On hold until I have free time and energy for it.
See you all after Lent (April 1st). I won't be responding until then.
The short answer to lack of update is lack of time. I was already short on it when I started, and now I've gotten new responsibilities at work. I don't think its realistic for me to finish this anymore. When I get home I'm exhausted. Its unfortunate.
It was a very small scope project, just objectively examine the adjustments made and whether they were all in favor of Global Warming, and have a discussion about all of them. It wasn't to reproduce, and justify, and examine the entire field of climate science. People here seems to be expecting it to be that, which is a bit odd.
I won't deal with the suspicion by Mountain Man that climatologists have secretly and covertly manipulated even the archived data. I don't know why you find that persuasive Teal or why you consider me not dealing with that 'extremely sloppy' if all I'm doing is examining the calibrations. That scope would be massive and difficult. And honestly Teal, if you don't think that I'm doing in this thread has value if I don't do that, then I'm not sure I think there's any reason for me to continue.
My scope was specifically limited to examining the calibrations. Why they were made, and whether, as has been claimed, they were all, always, in favor of Global Warming.
I'd love to continue it, but frankly, at this stage. I'm out of time so I can't.
On hold until I have free time and energy for it.
See you all after Lent (April 1st). I won't be responding until then.
Comment