There are reports that trouble me, some for their objective content, others for thinking they impose.
That's publication "hackeriana" e-mail traffic between the best minds that have dealt in recent years, of analysis and processing of data related to global warming, certainly belongs to the second row.
The authenticity of mail, many of which dated nineties, it has been confirmed by the same authors, but they tend to minimize the "news" manipulation of data designed to prove the goodness of catastrophic climate models.
He thought that the data base of studies and investigations are handled and taken to their own use and consumption by the international scientific community, and then we can talk about anything and everything to convince us otherwise, without ever having the certainty of always knowing the reality of things.
This feeling of loss is not disappointment, we all know by now what the media should be read with a critical mind and serenity, and until now we had even before this news.
But we are talking about climate, environment, planet earth, and I never thought in a direction that drives the scientific data to prove the theories and algorithms of food scientists and the climate pessimism. Or at least I would have thought the existence of pressure in the other direction, to discredit catastrophic global warming.
Boh, which prodest , who benefits? And most importantly, who and what, now, can we trust?
0 comments:
Post a Comment