RE:RE:RE:RE:Trial halted on remarkable results. Replaced placebo by drug thadeush:
Few people – and I am certainly not one of them – are in a position to understand the intricacies of the climate debate. The appeal to authority – contrary to your claim -- can be made on both sides. What ordinary people have to rely on are things like the track record of predictions of climate scientists and the behaviour of the alarmists.
The issue is not warming per se, but the extent to which mankind is responsible. The facts are that the alarmist predictions of the 1980's have not been validated by events. In particular, the models predicting continuous warming consonant with a rise in greenhouse gasses have been shown to be in error. The gasses have risen, but the temperature has not risen proportionately for the last nineteen years; thus, there is something wrong with the theory.
With real science there is an understanding of the interactions of things which allows for consistent accurate predictions. This has not yet happened with climate “science.”
“The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” (Thomas Huxley)
Secondly, the behaviour of the alarmists is suspicious and is often at odds with their protestations.
Starting with “Climategate” – to the change of terminology from “global warming” – because it wasn’t happening – to “climate change” – because climate change is undeniable – to the desperate attempts to get rid of the “pause” -- alarmists act more like proponents of a religious faith than dispassionate purveyors of fact.
“Science rests on reason and experiment, and can meet an opponent with calmness; but a belief is always sensitive.” (James Anthony Froude)
It is abundantly clear that prominent propagandists are entirely hypocritical – they do not believe
what they are saying.
Thirdly, the origins of alarmism are highly political; You might wish to examine the rle of the Club of Rome and Maurice Strong, who felt that it was our duty to destroy industrial civilization.
Those who claim that “the science is settled” – a phrase intrinsically hostile to spirit of scientific enquiry in the first place -- are being somewhat premature. There is a huge difference between a scientific hypothesis, and one which has been proven by consistent predictive success.
The truth will eventually come out. In the meantime, skepticism about the alarmist position is entirely justified by the evidence and by the behaviour of the alarmists.