Why the Global Warming Fear-mongering is not science.

A scientist writes in and hits the nail on the head.

One of the problems many people, especially scientists, are starting to have with the AGW proponents is their use of shrill tone and authority of numbers to try to stifle debate. Science is not consensus, and though there can be a scientific consensus that doesn't constitute science either. Computer models predicting conditions 50 years from now in a system as complex as the earth aren't within spitting distance of science. To be science something has to be testable and falsifiable. It must produce a predicted data point, interaction or outcome that is unique to the theory and can be verified or falsified. Would you bet your future on the accuracy of day seven of a seven day weather forecast? That is essentially what we are being told by the AGW proponents we absolutely must do without delay. Of course I think the without delay part has more to do with "We must pass the stimulus without delay" or "We must pass healthcare without delay" considerations than any notion that waiting three or four years will actuall make any long term difference.

Emphasis added.

This is the core problem. Science works by having a hypothesis that can be proved wrong. Simply having a computer model is not sufficient. Anyone saying otherwise is trying to con you.



Is the Earth's climate changing? Yes of course it is.

Are we getting hotter or colder? Depends on the time scale. Over the last five or so years we've been cooler, over the last century we've been hotter.

Is humanity causing an impact? Yes.

How much impact? That's more difficult to determine. And only falsifiable experiments can determine that with any accuracy.

How much impact does the Sun have relative to humans? See previous. That other planets such as Mars expeirenc global warming shows that that giant nuclear furnace does do something...

Is it worth the economic and liberty costs to regulate our output? Again, depends on how much humanity can acutally do and if it's worth the destruction of de-development.

All this money for a a few degrees of change that may be caused by humans, why isn't there such funding and "push" for anti-asteroid measures? Isn't that another global threat? Good question.