Groundless nonsense. The site is mainly for interested laymen, not climatologists. I'm right because the graphs that look different are of different datasets.
LOL!!! I posted his quote from the first page, where he states that YOU are absolutely WRONG! I know. Tough stuff. But, it's from HIM not me. Beyond that, when is it that we should ignore experts and instead base our future on laymen opinions?
You REALLY need to keep up. - you should read his site before making up ridiculous stories about the author of the site. - you could read what I post. I gave the quote of the author's intent in post #111 - coming from the "About" menu item of the site. - also note that he says: Do you know of ANY scientist who has review this site strongly enough to analyze whether there were math or other kinds of errors? Do you know of any scientist who has analyzed the source code of the code that HE writes? If so, CITE them.
Willreadmore QUOTED Paul from Woodfortrees: The same Willreadmore who continually without evidence claim that Paul is "munging" the SOFTWARE which is a falsehood while Paul never mentioned changing the software just the Algorithms and Databases for the software to process, he uses unchanged and asked for NEW algorithms and databases he wants to get constructive criticisms of his math's he is using for the website. The falsehood and misleading claims you make need to end since your credibility is at zero now.
Has willRantMore ever defined "munge"? I've worked in software for over 30 years and I have yet to encounter the term in any code base or design documents.
<yawn> You are the one making up the ridiculous stories. But it doesn't say what you claimed it says. Which is also not what you claimed. That is a smokescreen. No one claimed any particular scientist had subjected the site to such scrutiny.
He says no such thing. You are makin' $#!+ up about what he said. I don't advocate ignoring people, that's the AGW hysteria mongers' technique. You shouldn't base your conclusions on who says something but on what they say, and how well they support it.
lol. The software IS the algorithm. Yes, he wants to get constructive criticism. But, that doesn't mean his software has been verified. This is one guy. Suggesting that his software should counter what climatologists are saying just makes NO sense.
That last sentence is the problem. I see no indication of review by an actual scientist - which he is not, nor does he claim to be.
Tell me which copies from his site you believe are false. I can then show exactly where they came from. Otherwise, please stop calling me a liar, which is against board policy.
LOL!! Short periods of cooling have been CENTRAL to your claims that projections of Earth's temp are wrong. And, that chart shows exactly what is wrong with your central premise.
It is clear you are flailing badly since your ignorance of what software is and what Algorithms are destroys your argument here from Geek for Geeks: Difference between Software and Algorithm 1. Software : Software, as name suggest, is simply a type of software systems that allows user to interact with computer and gives instruction to computer to perform particular task as well as control functioning of hardware and its operations. 2. Algorithm : Algorithm, as name suggests, is simply a type of process, procedure, or set of rules that must be followed to solve any type of calculations i.e. step-by-step instructions that define how work should be executed in order to get desired outcome. Difference between Software and Algorithm : LINK for the rest ===== When are you going to post evidence of "munging" been waiting for days for the answer, Waiting Waiting Waiting.......
All I did was say it is cooling since 2015 which you never shown it to be wrong, while I also stated it has been warming since 1979 which you ignored completely, then I posted the UAH6 data showing it is has been COOLING since 2015 you completely ignored it, then I posted HadCrut4 data you........ Zzzzz... You then make false claims over and over which is your attempt to hide your ignorance of what Wood For Trees does and that you can't directly counter two databases I posted and what Jack posted. You are greatly helping the skeptics case with your track record of chronically misrepresenting what Paul stated in his website.