Quote

There is no significant man-made Global Warming underway and the science on which the computer projections of weather chaos are based is badly flawed.

The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models. They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.

It's also a reasonable scientific program to look at the dynamics of the standard model and to try to prove from that dynamics that it is computationally capable.

Most climatologists agree that, at best, global warming is a theory about future climactic conditions and cannot be proven based upon the historic record.

Whether the ice caps melt, or expand - whatever happens - the anthropogenic global warming theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.

Would people cheat on climate science? Sure. Because all it is a model into which there are 2,000 variables, and if I want this outcome, I nudge that one up a little and down a little bit, and there you go.

If we suppose that many natural phenomena are in effect computations, the study of computer science can tell us about the kinds of natural phenomena that can occur.

You always have to be worried about something that is considered a so-called 'scientific theory' that fits every scenario. Climate change, as they've defined it, can never be disproved.

When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science. But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade.

Climate change - for so long an abstract concern for an academic few - is no longer so abstract. Even the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Programme reports 'clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.'