[pfflier]

I am neither a corporation nor a big business. I am guilty of being a climate change denier. I am and engineer trained in the methods used for scientific process evaluation. One of those is validate the hypothesis with experimental results.

This is where the proponents of "climate change" fail so dismally. Instead of realizing their hypothesis fails when real world data is used, they simply adjust the results, not the testing and validation, to get the outcome they desire...more government funding and social condemnation of anyone that opposes them.

[Jim Noble]

Instead of realizing their hypothesis fails when real world data is used

It's not even that.

Ask them to state the null hypothesis. I mean, seriously, what is it?

Is it that climate is invariant? 10 kYa my land was under two miles of ice, and my ancestors were in the Franco-Cantabrian refugium.

So I hope invariant climate isn't the null hypothesis, because that would be STUPID.

[generally]

Exactly.

There are far too many, including supposed scientists, who believe in “proof by computer model.” I could build a computer model of nearly anything to “prove” whatever result you wanted.

People need to learn that computer models of complex phenomena can be a useful tool to understand them, but can NOT be used to prove anything. (Your daily weather forecast is a great example. Often useful, but frequently wrong.)