Age of Hoaxes
8th June 2017
So, to overcome any doubts on point one, the scientific and ecological community would have to show a scrupulous concern for the scientific method.Instead, we have the opposite.Meanwhile, there is, to date, no credible empirical evidence that the global temperatures on average are increasing. There has been no measured increase in twenty years.
Second, there is no credible empirical evidence the detected increases in times past were manmade, and clear evidence of prior heating and cooling periods at dates long before any industrialization could have had the alleged effects.
…
The Global Warming scare was based on computer models whose accuracy, when checked against past data, is poor to none. This is not an empirical test.
Moreover, contrary empirical evidence from experts in their fields, including fields as remote as tree ring dendrology or oceanography, routinely claim that their research shows no such changes as have been reported or predicted, and they complain that their public pronouncement to that effect have been ignored. This is the opposite of peer review.More damning is the fact the specific data on which the computer models were run was destroyed when it was asked to be revealed by a Freedom of Information Act request.The East Anglia University Emails contained specific reference to ‘hiding the decline’ (that is, the declining rate of global warming) so as to get a falsified result. Nonetheless, these false results were the primary ones used by the UN panel on Climate Change.Many of the scientists who names are on the report, and whose reputations are being used to lend credence to it, later said they had not seen the report, nor did they endorse it.The oft repeated claim that 90 percent of scientists agree the global warming is manmade is a falsehood, and has been debunked.