If 97% of "Scientists" Agree to Conclusions Based on Models That Can't Get Anything Right, What Sort of Scientists Are They? - Granite Grok

If 97% of “Scientists” Agree to Conclusions Based on Models That Can’t Get Anything Right, What Sort of Scientists Are They?

models-vs-datasets

Problems with Climate alarmism abound, not the least of which is the Rosetta stone from which our doomed future is predicated. Computer models.

Instead of saying ‘the pause’ fits with ‘missing energy’ which fits with ‘missing sea-level rises’ the excuses pile on excuses. What happened to the missing seal level rise? Apparently the ENSO effect dumped it on Australia. So sea levels need adjustment too. When the data doesn’t fit, we don’t adjust the model, but we do adjust the data. What bad luck –all the major instruments are cold biased. What are the odds?

In any case, excuses for the pause don’t solve the other flaws. The models not only fail on global scales, but on regional, local, short term, polar, and upper tropospheric scales too. They fail on humidity, rainfall, drought and they fail on clouds. The common theme is that models don’t handle water well. A damn shame on a planet covered with it.

-Joanne Nova, Climate Change – The Facts

The climate cult insists that 97% of “Scientists” agree…on conclusions based on computer models that have been wrong about everything for nearly 20 years. Doesn’t this suggest that there is something wrong with the models, their data, the ‘consensus crowd’ and their water-carriers, or their conclusions?

Even if we are to take the same Climate cult making the 97% claim at its word then 3% of ‘scientists’ don’t agree with the conclusions of computer models that have been wrong for nearly 20 years. This doesn’t make them right about the climate but doesn’t it make them more ‘scientific’ than that other 97%?

Science is about questioning not just other people’s theories but your own. You compare actual observations to the theory and then adjust the theory. But that’s not what has happened here. The observations are nowhere anything like what the models and the climate cult consensus predict.

So the 97% crowd has a problem with legitimacy, not just on their claims of consensus but on the consensus itself. This means that if 100% of scientists agreed they’d all be wrong because the models that promise catastrophe, and by which governments base expensive economy crippling policy they claim will avert it, can’t predict jack s**t and everyone, including the consensus crowd knows it.

It’s a scam.

The “97% science” crowd are 100% fear-mongering, strong-arming, decline-hiding, speech-silencing, and data-altering because without that the gravy train that sustains the fraud comes to a screeching halt and 100% of “scientists” getting rich on the public dole agree that the fiscal climate to which they’ve become accustomed is in peril should the actual science get enough breathing room to discredit the scientism they have been peddling to grow governments who return the favor by making them wealthy.

>