Science Deniers of the Climate Change Argument

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

When you decide on a hypothesis, you need to test that hypothesis and that becomes a theory. When the theory is proven, without a reason of a doubt, that becomes a fact. If at any point, the hypothesis fails in testing, then a scientist should re-examine the hypothesis and change it in order to improve the hypothesis for more testing. The scientist should not, under any circumstances, change the inputs in order to make the outputs fit the hypothesis.

In the argument about man-made global warming (revised as "climate change" when the warming "paused"), there has been many cases of data manipulation.

• The most recent being Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers
  
• And the biggest and first was Climategate

However, beyond the changing of temperature readings, those who have been pushing against the man-made global warming belief, point to the climate prediction models themselves. One of these many scientists going against "the consensus" is Dr. Roy Spencer. Who wrote an article 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

The joke in the title is that while everyone talks about the false "97% of Scientists" claim, the models provided to not match up with the observed data. If the models can't predict correctly what is going to happen, then the models are wrong and possibly the hypothesis is also wrong. Just recently, a few of the scientist making the models said that they overestimated man's effect on climate change by 50%, giving us an extra 20 years or so before the climate kills us.

Since the vast majority of people aren't scientists or even hobby scientists, we try to rely on the expert/professional scientists to guide us. But, even as a non-scientists, one should be skeptical of scientific results. Being skeptical of things is the basis of science in the first place. However, there are those that can't even allow for the possibility that what they are told might not be correct.

Here is a Twitter discussion I had, where in no way would the denier of science be convinced that any other scientist, no matter the qualifications, could have another view that is correct.

---

Let the positive energy sing!

More Power to the Minnows!!