The difference between
real climate science,
and the "CO2 is Evil Cult"
( actually a "secular religion" ),
is that scientific statements
must always be verifiable
with observations.
Theoretical models
must be validated
by critically comparing
model predictions
with real measurements.
The more complex the issue,
the more important it is
to make measurements.
The climate system
is so complex
that in real
climate science,
measurements
are mandatory.
Theoretical models
have played
far too big a role
in climate research.
The unvalidated
computer models
describe a
dreamworld.
The power of the climate cult
comes from inspiring fear
of CO2 -- an emotional driver.
Very few people know anything
about the climate system.
If Mother Nature alone
is responsible
for climate change,
then mankind has
only one thing to do:
adapt to change.
If we are dealing with
a complex mixture
of natural forces
and human influences,
then we must first
determine which part
is caused by
Mother Nature
and which part
is caused by humans.
We don't have
that knowledge today.
Doubt is the basis
of all scientific progress.
Scientists who have no doubt,
convinced that they are right,
do not ask questions.
That's why we don't make
any progress
in the climate debate.
The UN’s IPCC degenerated into
a political clique, full of manipulation
and certainly, not looking for the truth.
CO2 is Evil Cult members
are very self-confident,
a mark of junk science.
Real science
is filled with doubt.
Predictions
of climate models
do not match
average temperature
measurements.
That is scientifically
unacceptable.
Reducing CO2,
which is the staff of life,
not pollution,
which is the staff of life,
not pollution,
is an extremely difficult
and expensive task,
while the benefits
are very uncertain.
Real air pollution
– think of soot particles,
– think of soot particles,
fine dust, SOx and
NOx compounds, etc.
NOx compounds, etc.
– is much easier to target,
and fight, and doing so
guarantees high benefits.
and fight, and doing so
guarantees high benefits.