Registered On: December 24, 2013
This thread has had over 7,000 views. It doesn’t bother me if everyone disagrees with me — that is their prerogative. However, if just one person looks and thinks “OK, maybe I should look a bit more deeply into this” then it’s worth it.
People shouldn’t just accept what the media, politicians and scientists throw at them as “fact”. Conflicting reports on what people should and shouldn’t eat come out every week, with scientists disagreeing all the time. With climate science, however, anyone who disagrees is labelled a ‘denier’. This is absurd and flies in the face of what good science is all about.
I would urge anyone who doesn’t believe that the evidence I’ve provided is indisputable to talk to someone who understands computer modelling and statistics and get their views. I can assure you that any statistician would agree a computer model predicting the future must show levels of potential errors if its results are to have any credibility. Yet with climate models this never happens.
So Gurny, BRI, NI, Deerey, instead of attacking me why don’t you just ask yourselves why this might be. It hardly needs a genius, scientist or anyone with an ounce of brain to understand why. If these models had strong levels of confidence associated with them the climate ‘scientists’ would be shouting it from the rooftops. The silence reveals everything you need to know.