Scientist

I don't think Mr Adams is entirely certain what constitutes a scientist.

He makes an interesting case about climate science's opposed positions.

The neat thing about science is that anyone CAN do it.

This is not something that requires a license or credentials to perform.

But as the complexity of your theory and experiment increases, you're going to need some serious math to account for all of the variables.  Most people can't do this.

One thing, though, about science is the falsifiable hypothesis.  Your theory has to be something that you can disprove.  Something you can test via experiment.

Like, "fire requires oxygen".  This is falsifiable because you can create an experiment that deprives your fire of oxygen and then you can see if it goes out.

What's the falsifiable hypothesis in global warming/anthropogenic climate change?  To construct a proof you need to run an experiment.  Because you cannot run this experiment on the whole planet, you need to make models.

And this is where it breaks.

The climate change people have been caught using models that give the same return regardless of inputs.  They've refused to disclose data sets for others to replicate their experiment, dragging their heels as long as possible and forcing the courts system to get involved only to discover that the data had "inadvertently" been deleted.

No way to replicate the experiment, the experiment and all conclusions derived from that experiment are invalid.  Even if you did the experiment in good faith.

This is how science works.

But, again, what's the falsifiable hypothesis?  So far I've seen it claimed that we'd be seeing climatic effects that have not surfaced.  It's supposed to be warmer today than it was 20 years ago.  Sea levels would be a foot higher.  Hurricanes would be more common and more intense.

Temperatures, sea levels and hurricanes are falsifiable hypotheses.

Is it warmer?  Debatable.

Have sea levels risen?  No.

Are hurricanes more frequent and stronger?  No.

And there you go.  You don't need complex math to see that the climate change folks are missing something and you don't need to be paid to do the research to see it.

What a lot of people seem to have forgotten is they've been screaming global warming for decades.  We're now past the point where the effects of the warming should be apparent, and those effects are not in evidence.

When these changes weren't evident, the label changes to "anthropogenic climate change" and now the hypothesis isn't falsifiable because any condition in the weather can be used to demonstrate it's true.

Gets warmer?  Anthropogenic Climate Change!

Gets cooler?  Anthropogenic Climate Change!

More precipitation?  Anthropogenic Climate Change!

Less precipitation?  Anthropogenic Climate Change!

While this doesn't say that the deniers are correct, I am saying that the warmerists are doing science wrong and even a layman can see it if they look.

I suspect a strict examination of the denier science will show similar patterns.  But I haven't applied the scrutiny to them like the warmerists.  Why?

Because the denier camp isn't advocating a solution set that requires the economic suicide of Western Civilization while ignoring places like China emit as much if not more of the stuff they say is causing the catastrophic changes to the environment.