Belief in the predictions

Oscardela

If the Irish have learned on thing in recent years, it is not to accept what any so called experts say , but to question and re-question and no longer just pacifly accept.

We are often told that the majority of scientists agree with the global warming hypothesis, and the implication is that anyone who does not agree with it must be either stupid or mad or a troublemaker.

This "overwhelming majority" does not exist and it would be of no consequence if it did. Science is not advanced by majorities, but by the endless testing of evidence. The way the climate establishment argues otherwise, while energetically suppressing literature which disagrees with its credo, shows how "scientific" government-funded climate "science" actually is.

The entire case for man-made global warming alarmism rests on computer models (predictions, in other words), which have been demonstrated to be hopelessly, endlessly wrong. (That is why alarmists are so keen to differentiate between short-term and long-range predictions: it takes fifty years to test conclusively a glib stab-in-the-dark about 2060.) The fact is that the alarmists can't even get the past right (Hockey-stick, anyone?), or read current temperatures accurately - never mind give us a realistic forecast. Given their disastrous track-record, why should we be expected to take them seriously, let alone prop them up with our tax dollars?

The evidence is running solidly against man-made global warming. The alarmists have implicity conceded that fact, by re-naming their scare from "global warming", to "climate disruption". In effect, as each new climatic event occurs, taking the climate "scientists" completely by surprise and showing up the inadequacy of their models, they claim that their very inability to predict the course of the winter is proof of their shroud-waving claims.

We need to examine more and believe less.

Macha

There are already threads on the climate change "debate". Please kindly use them.