You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
On your first point, I guess if you don't trust the scientific community at large then you wouldn't trust peer-review anyway. Nothing I can do to sway you on that opinion.
For the second point, a lot of models have been updated as more accurate data comes along and the vast majority of those models have been updated towards more warming and more sea level rise. It is not going to be pretty in the next few hundred years unless we get our act together now.
if you don't trust the scientific community at large
Nope, I just realize that scientists are humans, and therefore have bias for various human reasons. In the climate "science" community, there is a big problem when scientists are getting paid by government organizations looking to push a specific agenda - that is, catastrophic climate change. As a result, the science they produce is unreliable at best.
a lot of models have been updated as more accurate data
They keep getting updates, but despite all the updates they keep being wrong, 100% of the time. You can do all the updates you want, but if your models never accurately predict climate, they are junk and should be trashed. The fact that they haven't been just exposes the bias and dishonesty in the climate "science" community.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Level_Cannon ago
On your first point, I guess if you don't trust the scientific community at large then you wouldn't trust peer-review anyway. Nothing I can do to sway you on that opinion.
For the second point, a lot of models have been updated as more accurate data comes along and the vast majority of those models have been updated towards more warming and more sea level rise. It is not going to be pretty in the next few hundred years unless we get our act together now.
[–] escapetomars ago
Nope, I just realize that scientists are humans, and therefore have bias for various human reasons. In the climate "science" community, there is a big problem when scientists are getting paid by government organizations looking to push a specific agenda - that is, catastrophic climate change. As a result, the science they produce is unreliable at best.
They keep getting updates, but despite all the updates they keep being wrong, 100% of the time. You can do all the updates you want, but if your models never accurately predict climate, they are junk and should be trashed. The fact that they haven't been just exposes the bias and dishonesty in the climate "science" community.