AGW is not science. If it were science there would be one model and it would be predictive. It would be falsifiable.
The mere fact AGW cannot separate human activity from planetary activity in ANY of its models disqualifies it as a Scientific Theory.
Just providing a quick unassailable argument. I have posed this on many lefty boards and it has NEVER been successfully challenged. A couple of times some have posted “yes there IS a single model.” My response: “point me to it.”
I think the word you are looking for is “psyience” which sounds a lot like “science”, but has no bearing on true “science” at all.
“Psyience” is a series of made up facts, that support any hypothesis you have, and allows you to throw away any samples that don’t support your hypothesis.
“Psyience” is fixed, unchangeable and cannot be questioned, because .... psyience says so.
If they a redefine male/female to suit their needs; let’s create a new word to suit their definitions.
When you offer grant money to scientists they quickly devolve into money-grabbing liars and propagandists.
Scientists are human—flaws and all.
You are correct. I have followed this subject closely for 30 years beginning in college when I bought the premise as a naive’ young person.
I remember the predictions and alarmist statements that never came to pass. On top of that, I became fascinated with the politics of the subject. The premise allows for centralized control of people and their activities. The funding is only given to those who promote the hypothesis.
The hypothesis has failed repeatedly, but they do not abandon it and say the “science is settled.” Real science is never settled.
AGW is a political idea wrapped in pseudoscience. The climate is constantly changing and history shows this to be true absent any influence from man.
USA Today. /s