08-16-2019, 12:42 PM
(08-07-2019, 08:19 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Again, continuing to repeat your question isn't going to change what I've actually said. I've laid out the issues and assumptions that are problematic. The challenge has always been to prove otherwise. So that leaves you two choices - get to work on google and prove me wrong, or stop pretending that you actually understand the science and move on to another topic.
I think you're fully aware that non-findings aren't typically published. And I'm sure you can understand there isn't research invalidating a non-public model that was never validated. That's not how science works, and I think you know this.
I've said many, many times the "science" behind climate hysteria is junk. Data mining is not science, and I'm not going to go find you a journal article that. Maybe don't mock people when you don't appear to understand even the basics of the science yourself.
I took statistics at Miami University as part of a program for gifted high school students. I took Earth Science in 10th or 11th grade at a shitty little high school in southern Ohio where cow tipping is a right of passage into manhood.
What's your level of expertise with data mining, statistics, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and meteorology and atmospheric science?
