| The supposition that all educated climate scientists agree that humans contribute significantly to global warming is false. Furthermore, what percentage of relevantly educated engineers (as opposed to scientists) believe that (1) human's contributions to global warming is significant, (2) the current trend in global warming is necessarily detrimental, and (3) that we can effectively reverse such "effects" using some economically viable methods?
Either climate scientists realized when they were first formulating their "global warming" theories that it is only valid for extremely long time scales and it would likely have no effect within the next decade (in which case they were deceitfully hiding this information while popularizing the theory) or they are only now adjusting their models to account for this concept (in which case they were incompetent when pressing for imminent actions based on such lousy models, and are now forced to "tweak" their "models"). When I was a faculty member or a TA, I always took off many more points on a homework assignment when someone obtained the right answer using the wrong method (because a student could obtain the correct answer either from the book or from a friend) than if he used the right approach and made simple errors to end up with an incorrect result. In my opinion, these scientists decided to "kluge" their lousy theory rather than figure out what was really wrong with it. That is not what we call science. That is "plug and chug" with "fudge factors." Anyone who proposes spending trillions of dollars based on such hogwash disguised as "science" has no concept of how real science is supposed to work. |