I personally thank President Trump for injecting s
Post# of 22465
(Total Views: 408)
Posted On: 06/02/2017 8:50:21 AM
I personally thank President Trump for injecting some sanity into the climate debate. What passes for science in climate "science" would be laughed out of the room in any other field of science.
The theory of catastrophic climate changed is based almost entirely on the output of a set of computer models. First of all, while computer process models are extremely helpful in understand complex systems, they are not scientific evidence. Second, these models have shown exactly ZERO predictive ability. In fact, model forecasts continue to drift farther away from observations. That and that alone should be enough to falsify the theory as currently posed, however the theory was made unfalsifiable which is also patently unscientific. Here is a list of 883 things (with links) that have been blamed on climate change/global warming. Note how many play both sides of the field and virtually all of them that don't have failed to materialize. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm Yet we still claim the theory is correct?
Likewise, in no other field of science can you get away with the nonsense that runs rampant in mainstream climate science - claiming data where none exists, wholesale manipulation of data, changing data without explanation and without archiving the original data, and refusing to share data and methodology for replication by other scientists - another core tenet of science.
Lastly, the language used by those promoting the climate change scare - "scientific consensus," "the science is settled," and "the debate is over" belies reality and thus exposes the intent to defraud. You don't need to claim consensus if there really is a consensus. The science clearly is not settled when you don't understand it well enough to make anything approaching an accurate prediction, and certainly not when the margin of error around your predictions is INCREASING.
We've been recovering from the Little Ice Age for the past 100 or so years. Before that, in the Medieval Warm Period, temperatures were warmer than today as demonstrated by a significant majority of studies of that period: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php and http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/qualitative.php
The problem is you can't tax and regulate natural change. You can't redistribute $trillions of wealth inside a country and between countries. And you can't share in the $billions of grants to study manmade climate change if it doesn't exist. The global political and economic interests are aligned which is the only way this scientific fraud can exist.
The theory of catastrophic climate changed is based almost entirely on the output of a set of computer models. First of all, while computer process models are extremely helpful in understand complex systems, they are not scientific evidence. Second, these models have shown exactly ZERO predictive ability. In fact, model forecasts continue to drift farther away from observations. That and that alone should be enough to falsify the theory as currently posed, however the theory was made unfalsifiable which is also patently unscientific. Here is a list of 883 things (with links) that have been blamed on climate change/global warming. Note how many play both sides of the field and virtually all of them that don't have failed to materialize. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm Yet we still claim the theory is correct?
Likewise, in no other field of science can you get away with the nonsense that runs rampant in mainstream climate science - claiming data where none exists, wholesale manipulation of data, changing data without explanation and without archiving the original data, and refusing to share data and methodology for replication by other scientists - another core tenet of science.
Lastly, the language used by those promoting the climate change scare - "scientific consensus," "the science is settled," and "the debate is over" belies reality and thus exposes the intent to defraud. You don't need to claim consensus if there really is a consensus. The science clearly is not settled when you don't understand it well enough to make anything approaching an accurate prediction, and certainly not when the margin of error around your predictions is INCREASING.
We've been recovering from the Little Ice Age for the past 100 or so years. Before that, in the Medieval Warm Period, temperatures were warmer than today as demonstrated by a significant majority of studies of that period: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php and http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/qualitative.php
The problem is you can't tax and regulate natural change. You can't redistribute $trillions of wealth inside a country and between countries. And you can't share in the $billions of grants to study manmade climate change if it doesn't exist. The global political and economic interests are aligned which is the only way this scientific fraud can exist.
(2)
(0)