Replies

For instance, more than 440,000 people would have to be working together to fool the public if climate change deniers are correct.

Strawman on two levels.

The email release a few years back shows AGW proponents ARE working together to suppress skeptics. And it doesn't take a conspiracy - a shared belief system is more than sufficient.

Strawman on two levels. The email release a few years back shows AGW proponents ARE working together to suppress skeptics. And it doesn't take a conspiracy - a shared belief system is more than sufficient.

Both are valid objections, but the missing factor is the needed scope, degree and manner of evidence relative to the kind of claims being made, and their motivation, and likewise the contrary evidence. The ethos of Climate Change requires not simply evidence that testifies to change of climate, but that of a novel and overall deleterious change that will continue unabated and have such radical negative effects that it warrants the radical expansive and expensive programs proposed by the alarmist of this. And which thus have a vested interest in gaining $upport for Climate Change research which supports it.

And which evidence i do not see as warranting the present extreme claims, and especially that of overall deleterious change that will continue unabated and have such radical negative effects that it warrants the proposed radical expansive and expensive programs. If the world is warming, i do not see this as unprecedented, or overall negative, while being in the NE i thank God for the warmer winter we are having!

Now how the claim against conspiracy relates to the evidence for the risen Christ is another issue i have not the energy for now.

You're right. It has been revealed that there is actually an active conspiracy to falsify data and conclusions in support of global warming, anthropomorphic global warming, rapid climate change, or whatever they are calling their scheme now.

I know, personally, thanks to education and several decades of experience that what they are doing with their computer "models" is completely invalid. The output of these so-called simulations is really just pure fantasy scripted and tweaked and tuned to provide whatever result the people with the $ backing them want to see. It is not that the results are invalid because they've "adjusted" the numbers to get the results they want. No, actually it is worse. The results are invalid because they can never be valid in the way they are sold - the entire modeling approach is not and never will be predictive. It does not matter what numbers they put in, or what they get out, there will never be any more than a pure random chance that the results turn out to be correct. In other words, spend millions on models or throw darts at a board, both have the same chance of being correct.