Replies

I know a LOT about science. The following arguments I use have never been defeated;

Summary: If AGW was science there would be one model and it would be predictive. AGE is neither. The linear “it is getting hotter” is meaningless and useless as a scientific tool.

In detail:
1) Scientifically describe the base climate sans humans
2) Scientifically describe the current climste
3) Scientifically explain the delta
4) What will be the effects of climate in 2030. Why have zero AGW ptedictions come to pass?

They cannot.

Important note:There is no such thing as scientific “consensus.” The person who uses that term admits they are scientifically illiterate and aping talking points.

From Eisenhower's farewell address:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Science has been corrupted by politics in this area for ~30 years. If you wanted a grant, you had to toe the AGW line. Eisenhower was incredibly prescient.

"The following arguments I use have never been defeated..."

I find most global warmers are easily flummoxed by:"You say the earth's climate is warming at dangerous rates. If you had the power to set the earth's thermostat, what would be the optimum temperature? Where would you set the thermostat? What is the ideal mean temperature we should all be striving to achieve?"

Demand that they provide a specific number, and when they balk, ask how they can be so sure we're rising above what it should be.

Important note:There is no such thing as scientific “consensus.” The person who uses that term admits they are scientifically illiterate and aping talking points.

There is no such thing as "settled science". It is not heretical to question groupthink orthodoxy. Science must always be reproducible, and subject at all times to question. These people are complete loons.