The climate narrative broke for me back in 2000-2001 timeframe. I read a paper that hypothesized that there were 9 primary variables to global temperatures. The authors readily acknowledged that they had a poor understanding of how 7 of them worked. There were two that they believed they had sufficient understanding to model - water vapor and CO2.

So they built a computer model and plugged in estimates for the 7 variables and held them constant while they modelled water vapor and CO2. Then they focused on CO2, because water vapor isn't "man-made".

Well I'm not a trained engineer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once. If you've ever tried to maintain a pool you know that there are many variables that affect the water quality and anytime you tinker with one you impact all of the others.

The idea that you could estimate 7/9 variables and hold them constant when you readily admit you don't understand them is patently absurd.

The real challenge with many of our so-called "scientists" is that they are not disinterested parties trying to gather objective data. They already believe something and set out to prove it. That's how you get someone who thinks they've made a breakthrough discovery when they put a gas stove in a hermetically sealed 10'x8'x8' room and discover NO levels are too high.

----------

Deport, Deflate, De-Militarize, De-Fund NGOs

Thuddenly Tracker: Firsts-6, Seconds-25