Climate Change Science

[Aractus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxCzW6RWoLg

The people most often listened to in Climate Science are not the climate scientists.

A friend of mine is a geologist, we'll call him Anthony (because that's his name). I had a discussion with him a couple of years back about Tim Flannery's position, and he said he quite likes Tim Flannery. I asked him - why is he given a job that he is not qualified for being that he's not a climate scientist? He said "well he is a climate scientist". Well, I hate to say it, but this is one of the times that I am right. That Flannery would be presumed to be a climate scientist from his government appointed position is clearly evident.

Flannery was appointed by the previous government to be the part-time Chair of the Climate Commission for a salary of $180,000 - his job was basically to spew his propaganda. There's money to be made in supporting climate change, that's for sure. But what infuriates me much much more than this is the $90 million of taxpayer money given to his company Geodynamics Limited. They claimed that it would relatively simple to generate power from geothermal activity. That was in 2002.


Here's a clip I made explaining what it's like to waste $90 million:

http://youtu.be/rolHSTWp3w0

Now let's get back to the issue which is the climate projections. If you are going to say that it isn't relevant that recent observations are in 95% disagreement with recently-made projections, then you are creating impossible conditions.

Or I can state it another way - the way science advances, as climate scientist Scott Denning puts it in the video, is through falsification. A theory has to be falsifiable to be valid. Having theories that are not falsifiable isn't science, and this is the big problem. How are climate models falsifiable if their overwhelming failure to predict climate is merely ignored?