Simplistic physics not simple physics. Or, more accurately still, simpleton physics. You probably need a dictionary to know the difference. << Over 97% of climate scientists and myself do not agree with you.
Simple elementary physics at work. >>
As the infamous Settled Science computer models found, the physics is NOT so simple. Sure the ideas of a dew point, freezing point, photon absorption by wavelength, chlorophyll function etc etc that go to make up climate are individually simple, when they all work together on a big ball in space with the sun shining variably and cosmic rays sloshing around, with a varying magnetic field and orbit, it's not so simple. In fact it's hideously complex. The models did NOT represent reality [even with their dirty great envelopes of what might happen].
You've also been conned by the infamous "97% of climate scientists" figure. Actual scientifically literate people who know about confirmation bias and plain old self-dealing would know that such a figure is bunk. Even if it wasn't just misquoting how the 97% figure was determined. Show me the data that gave that 97% figure. You can't. Give the method, names of the people involved in the 97% etc.
You might not know the saying "In God We Trust, All Others Must Have Data". It was popular in engineering purchasing offices.
Michael Mann and the Global Alarmists are not God, though they are confused about that.
Michael Mann isn't a scientist. He failed the falsification test.
Mqurice |
