Comments by "Mark Pawelek" (@mark4asp) on "How I lost trust in scientists" video.

  1. How is mathematical modelling - employing a parametized greenhouse effect (which is itself a more basic model) "science"? Models built on models - nothing ever validated. Modellers are such terrified jerks they cannot debate anyone in public. None are able to explain why my refutations of their crude, simplistic, wrong models, are illegit. Scientists misused science by redefining science to mean playing tricks with maths. This divorced science from the real world. They do it this way because they know man-made climate is the ONLY thing influential purse-holders in control of funding want to hear. Alarmists - in contrast work with no gravy train funding - on a shoe-string - yet still manage to more or less completely explain how and why the climate system is solar-driven. To shore up their credibility - so as to maintain their monopolistic access to funding Alarmists lie about skeptics being "fossil-fools" - funded by industry interests. Alarmists are dishonest, libelous scammers. Skeptical scientists - at CERES (Soon & Connolly & Co) can explain ALL the behaviour (warming, cooling) of climate over the past 150 years. They base their work on empiricism - it is bottom up. Has Sabine even bothered looking at it before deciding who is right in science? I don't think so. Man-made climate studies are top-down science. Models first. The twist data to straight-jacket into their models - so as to pretend to be doing empirical work. Climate alarmist scientists Sabine kow-tows to are ignorant of basic empirical work. They likely think it's below them. Alarmist skills: Libel, telling fairy stories, monstering good people, jerking off TPTB. Man-made skeptics skills - working on a shoe string to debunk man-made climate lie and explain how the actual climate works.
    1