As the National Academy of Sciences wrote in 1991, «Risk Assessment techniques are highly speculative, and almost all rely
on multiple assumptions of fact — some of which are entirely untestable.»
RE: Just a little piecprsteve on the credibility of the authors of the study: Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real - world data from NASA's Terra satellite
contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real - world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict
multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
Any particular simulation (and hence diagnostic from it) arises as a result from a collection
of multiple assumptions — in the model physics itself, the forcings of the simulation (such as the history of aerosols in a 20th Century experiment), and the initial conditions used in the simulation.
Once again, I believe that your «evidence» for the divinity of Jesus, the existence of «Yahweh», and the historicity of the alleged Resurrection of Jesus are all based on nothing more than
multiple assumptions and second century hearsay, primarily by a guy named Papias, a known mystic living in Asia Minor in circa 130 AD.
It appears that the discrepancy rests — as the article indicates — in
the multiple assumptions underpinning the computer models which are just wrong.