RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2007
- 55,992
- 18,083
Cite models that show the dire predictions made about catastrophe just a few years ahead...... Cite the Models that show the sea rise in 100 years and then explain why they can not get one right for 10 years but we should believe the 100 year model..... Cite the model that show runaway heat in 100 years then explain how they can not even predict what the heat will be world wide in 10 years and explain why we should believe the models. Better yet just cite the model where scientists can plug in the KNOWN temperatures and conditions for say the last 20 years and then show that computer model can model the world wide global conditions over that period using the claims they say are settled.Fair enough. Take out peer-reviewed and just leave modelling. Plenty of examples of modelling having proven to be working.even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling
By definition..."peer-reviewed" is NOT science!
Before columbus it was "peer-reviewed science" that the earth was flat.
Science is PROVABLE! You create a valid test and every time you run it, you get the same results...if somebody else runs the exact same test...THEY get the same results...THAT is science!
Not to mention...why wont they tell me what their evidence is?
I keep hearing how all scientists agree...the science is settled...the argument is over...and yet they wont even tell me the nature of their so called "science".
Phooey on that!