Originally posted by Eladar
I guess that would depend on your definition of statistically significant.
Nope; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
"statistical significance" isn't some loose layperson term but has an objective scientific definition.
...My point is computer models which were used to hype global warming for political purposes.
What is my evidence? Al Gore ...
Is Al Gore a scientist? -answer, NO.
Is he a computer programmer? -answer, probably not.
-but either way; did he create those computer models? -answer, certainly not; only the SCIENTISTS did.
Did he run the simulations using those computer models to get the scientific results? -answer, NO.
So in what sense did he "use" the computer models? answer; He didn't, at least not directly. He may have used some scientific results outputted by a computer model and, yes, just possibly used them for a 'political' purpose; so what? does that mean the computer models are wrong? -answer, NO. -If someone says the Earth is round for 'political' purposes, does that indicate the Earth is flat? -answer, NO.
-thus your 'point' is at best completely mute and at worst badly flawed.
And what about the scientific results that show global warming that didn't partly come from computer models but came from JUST measurements i.e. ONLY the collection of data? Is science wrong about that as well? How so?