Talk:Climate: Long range Investigation, Mapping, and Prediction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems like a good start and covers the only bit of it I know anything about - the how-cool-was-it controversy. William M. Connolley 08:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"These factors suggest that CLIMAP systematically overestimated the temperatures in the tropical oceans during the last glacial though there is at present no consistent explanation for why or how this should have happened."

This is the most idiotic conclusion imagineable. Its the models that are wrong. When you are constructing models you don't, for fucksakes, turf out the empirical evidence in favour of the models.

Can we have some real scientists here?

Instead of alarmist idiots pretending to be scientists?

This is all people like Connolley do. Fit a square peg in a round hole. This is science fraud.

Its come to my attention that William Connelly has basically been on an obsessive crusade to warp the Wikipedia as propaganda for the "global warming" science fraud. Its not any sort of one-off with this guy but an intentional crusade to co-opt Wikipedia as an instrument of propaganda.

There is no use invoking the "There is no conspiracy" bullshitartistry. Thats just more dishonesty. Connelly's entire activity on the wiki ought to be investigated and his dishonest warping of topics ought to be mitigated. He's not a scientist. He's a maths and software guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)