Climatology is not Science!!!

In response to a Washington Post Editorial
"Scott Pruitt demonstrates what climate denial sounds like"


    Truly objective scientists approach science from the perspective of what do we know. Anything which involves what we think or believe is called a hypothesis.

    There are five steps in the scientific method. They are;
    1.  make an observation
    2.  ask a question
    3. form a hypothesis
    4. conduct an experiment
    5. accept or reject the hypothesis.

    There is no consensus in true science.
    True scientific work welcomes dissent. If you have a belief you put it up for others to examine using the scientific method.

    There are no lobbies or lobbyists in true science. If you can’t prove your hypothesis then you don’t get to have a meeting of your friends, or fellow opinion holders and then claim it must be true because the majority says it must be true. That is not Science.

    Modern Climatology is at best a modern day brand of hand waving magical illusion on the order of the Wizard of Oz. It operates on the belief that you don’t need to actually do any science, just put your numbers in the climatology computer machine and out pops a prediction for thirty years in advance!

    It is most comfortable dealing with great unknowns. For instance the amount of carbon dioxide mankind is putting into the atmosphere. Scientific answer We don’t know. Climatology’s answer its all in the model.

    Compared to Meteorology, it is a huge hoax. If it were possible to predict with accuracy what the world’s temperature will be in 30 years, you should be able to nail it every day 30 hours in advance.

    Predicting sea-level rise 30 years from now? Heck why not show us how really good you are? Tell us precisely when the next hurricane will hit Dover, Delaware. Date and time please. How high will the tides be? What will the winds be?

    Even the best hurricane predictions just three days from the event can’t dependably mark out the hour and place that the center of the eye wall will be. Otherwise explain the Katrina debacle of New Orleans.

    Until you can, please stop the miasma of silly terms like settled science, scientific consensus and all the other non-scientific hokum that you pass off as common wisdom. But then I am just one true scientist who denies non-scientific projections trying to pass themselves off as facts.