All scientific statements should be disprovable by nature

Gravity-find somewhere it doesn't exist
Evolution-Find a modern day rabbit fossil next to a T-Rex (or that kind of thing)

All scientific theories (not the vernacular theory!) are disprovable (hypothetically).

AGW is not. It is a circular argument. No matter what happens, it self perpetuates its own cause. Hotter, its AGW, Colder, its AGW, drier, yep, you guessed it, AGW, wetter, once again, we have some AGW.

It is a self supporting circular argument because no matter what the weather/climate does they just reply "actually we expect this and it's definitely global warming" or now aptly changed a few years ago to "climate change"


As a scientist, the level of stats they use is shocking.

In applied statistics for scientific experiments, you usually measure variables and compare within groups, between groups, and can use regressions and rankings to figure out what is going on.

The issue is, to figure out what is going on, you need to remove all variables, or stack them in an appropriate way as to find the "odd one out" or "odd few out"

For example, we have 5 food types in an agar preparation, and 5 bacterial species, so 10 variables.

Do we put all 5 bacteria in one dish, with all 5 food types, or, do we do this

Food 1 - Bacteria 1
Food 1 - Bacteria 2
Food 1 - Bacteria 3
Food 1 - Bacteria 4
Food 1 - Bacteria 5
Food 2 - Bacteria 1

Etc, of course, it could be combined, so

Food 1 & 2 Bacteria 1.

The list goes on.

One must separate variables to know how strong those variables are acting upon the effector.

If you try to grow 5 bacteria with all 5 types of agar in one dish you'll get a gloopy mess and can't know which food grew which bacteria, any competition or anything, because their is too much signal vs noise ratio.

All scientific experiments REMOVE EXTRANEOUS variables! They repeat, with not the same dish, but re prepped dishes, in tandem, parallel double blind placebo etc, to ensure everything is separate and good to go.

Climate scientists have 1 planet, they cannot forcibly remove variables, and must work with extremely ridiculous signal vs noise issues, which is why despite after decades, the models still don't work, and still can't predict shit.

Prediction capability is when you know your science has made it big time. If you can predict correctly most (maybe all) of the time, you have figured it out.

AGW isn't settled science, it's barely science.

We have 1 planet and all variables play off each other (potentially hundreds of thousands) with no way of removing variables to extrapolate anything.




Would you trust a drug that was tested on one person only? Who also had a concoction of other drugs with it?

Genuinely would you?

Because I expect drugs to have had thousands of people in clinical trials, with minimal extraneous variables, and dosage testing, placebos, double blind parallell studies. Not just one guy popping a bunch of pills to say it's okay

That's what climate scientists are doing. They test on one sample (Earth) while many other variables are working, and don't even know of them or don't measure them correctly.