Supposedly Einstein had something on his wall to the effect that 'Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted'. By the same token the Boston matrix/scorecard business bs approach emphasises that you need a mix of gut feeling to gauge hard numbers targets because if they don’t equate you either don’t know what’s going on or your counting system sucks..... The degree of SAGE and supporters’ unanimity and their complete and high handed rejection of dissenting views from people equally as well or better qualified is inherently unscientific. Hence ‘deniers’ ‘covidiots’ etc. They cannot hold their own in argument so play the man not the ball. Except the high ground belongs to principled debate.
I do agree with that. Politicians generally seem to have a great talent for fcuking things up big time.
With climate science it is fairly easy not to believe many of the so called experts: They have repeatedly and demonstrably got their predictions wrong. They work from flawed speculative models (much the same as Covid). They "choose" relatively very short time spans that deceptively show a false picture. e.g. two favourite dates used by climate alarmists are; 1860 the end of the mini ice age, and early 1970's a cold spell when many were predicting another ice age. They make assertions and statements that directly conflict one another as well as actual events. Some alter (maximum recorded temperatures) or completely ignore historical data (medieval warm period) that does not support their argument. And then there are millions of years of historical data that proves a long term cyclic pattern, that has remained relatively constant and predictable, disproving the alarmist modelling. Then there are their solutions to the "problem", which many on close inspection cannot be justified, and may cause more harm to the environment than they are supposed to solve, whilst ignoring more practical and productive solutions.
Importantly, people are paying scientists to prove global warming. No one appears to be paying them to disprove global warming. In this context, if a scientist starts to disprove global warming, how long do you think their grant will last for, and subsequently how long will their career last? Climate science is a discipline where people are paid to find results, not paid on how good they are.
Too many. We ARE being lied to by Ministers about ‘asymptomatic spread’ (medically de-bunked) and lockdown (20+ international peer reviewed papers saying they are wholly ineffective)...... we are accepting loss of freedom for no benefit except to those who would control us. Do we want them to learn the wrong lessons?
