[ QUOTE ]
but, my take is that it was a software error (udisputable mathematical problem) that he fixed and proved, that a lot of global warming people base their premise on. yay or nay?
[/ QUOTE ]
It very well may be but the point is that the first question that is raised by those who are on the other side of the debate is who is this guy a tool for. It's rarely, if ever from my observation, a discussion on the merits of what the person is actually stating. The more I educate myself on this (which admittedly I need more of) I become more convinced that we should be skeptical of the accuracy of the climate models FWIW.
Edit: For instance regarding the models check this article out:
Scientists try new ways to predict climate risks
for instance:
We feel certain about some of the aspects of future climate change, like that it is going to get warmer," said Matthew Collins of the British Met Office. "But on many of the details it's very difficult to say."
"The way we can deal with this is a new technique of expressing the predictions in terms of probabilities," Collins told Reuters of climate research published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.
Scientists in the U.N. climate panel, for instance, rely on several complex computer models to forecast the impacts of warming this century, ranging from changing rainfall patterns over Africa to rising global sea levels.
But these have flaws because of a lack of understanding about how clouds form, for instance, or how Antarctica's ice will react to less cold. And reliable temperature records in most nations stretch back only about 150 years.
and
"Climate science is a very new science and we have only just begun to explore the uncertainties," said David Stainforth of Oxford University in England who contributed research to the Royal Society.
I don't know but to base billions and billions of dollars being spent on what seems like a lot of uncertainty seems to be ridiculous to me.