#### Achh, hot potato.

... unfortunately climatology isn't real science either. More like pseudo-science like astrology or skientology.

They don't have any proven theory, no correct predictions and whole pile of shit is based on *numerical model*, for f**ks sake!

That's *engineering tool* and it's used only when you've no f***ing clue what is causing what. In scientific terms numerical model is barely a hypothesis, not a theory. And 'reseach' isn't even hypothesis, it's at even lower step at stairs to actual science.

Not even a *proven hypothesis* as *all* predicitions have been seriously wrong. Every one of them. To me, as a scientist, that's kind of problem: If I present BS instead of correct predictions, I get fired. Obviously IPCC isn't.

Anyone can slap a pile of numbers into curve fitting program and call it 'numerical model'. Even me, I've done that and got about correct results, too. IPCC can't do even that, despite 30 years of trying.

Remember the hockey stick curve? It was pure BS, but the idea of it still lives because money IPCC gets for selling CO2 emission permissions.

Always *follow the money*.

Notice that warming is/was obvious, I'm strictly talking about so called science used to trying to explain it. Because in actual science you've a theory and a formula derived from the theory, like temp = correction factor* CO2 concentration squared.

Simple, eh? Where is that formula?

On the other hand Solar fluctuations are easy to measure directly and SOHO satellite is doing exactly that. That's hard evidence.

Also astronomers did tell us that there was 2% increase in it, in 1990s. You tell us they are wrong, like IPCC already did? I wonder what kind of qualifications they had for doing so.

Obviously climatology is so difficult no-one ever is qualified to question their BS methods, according to IPCC.

By now it's no more than a pseudo-scientific cult. Funded by governments raking billions and billions in various CO2-related taxes.

*Follow the money*. The difference to skientology is getting very, very thin.

The common thing: Believers believe, no matter what. In actual science you prove stuff and when it's proven, there's no room for a) belief nor b) doubt.

Climatologist have absolutely no proof whatsoever. If they had, they'd have a proven theory generating correct predictions (up to 4 decimal positions), instead of numerical models.