I am a critic of Anthropogenic warming. Here are some comments I have recently made on Youtube.

 

 

 

A Skeptical Look at Climate Science  On YouTube.

 First of all thank you for saying somethings heretofore unsaid. I feel your argument was weak for the following reasons: First of all, you criticize empiricim because it lacked imagination. That is certainly falsifiable. Are we to say the work of Isaac Newton for example, lacked imagination? That is simply ridiculous. We call Newton's theories on motion "Laws" for good reason. Not because they have no problems, but because there has probably been no theory more rigorously tested and confirmed in all of science. There are hosts of scientists and their theories that have been profoundly tested and found to be true. Einstein, a 20th century scientist if there ever was one, produced the most profound and rigorously tested theories. Did either Einstein or Newton lack imagination? No. Imagination wasn't injected into science in the 1900s as you assume. It has been at the heart of it since Plato. So it is a fundamentally flawed assumption to accept imagination was spawned in the 1900s. No, as you present it, it became an excuse for accepting the extremes of the uncertainties of AGW. What needs to be discussed are the prejudices that are accepted by certain quarters of science to be true. Criticism today needs to include the vast streams of research dollars that are only awarded to "science" that tows the line. Imaginative science needs to include the research that is suggesting a Milankovitch cycle that has us trending cooler until at least 2050. Why isn't that included in your graph? Because your prejudice precludes it even though it supposedly has a weight of uncertainty to it. I reflect the weight of "science" that existed in Pascal's day. The abiogenists were definitely the accepted group. They definitely had the funding. But it was the relatively lone voice of one obscure scientist who paved the way to heart transplants today. Similar phenomena existed in the days of Copernicus. The weight of science in his day, was not heliocentric. Vast sums were paid to scientist to produce tomes predicting the position of the planets, which were used for political horoscopes, the timing of wars and battles all paid huge sums of money to those "scientists" who could write those predictions based on the earth as the center of the universe. With vast sums of money at stake Copernicus' simple maths were a huge threat so much so after losing debate, they appealed to the pope and the church to weigh in on the argument. So it is today that when for example a skeptic points out, according the IPCC committee on sea level rise, the chair declares the rise to be a steady 1mm a year, and that his committee was stacked with non-scienctists (at least without sea-level expertise) we see an appeal to non-science "consensus" for validation instead of a frank look at the data. Without this new criticism, without demanding funding for science that does not agree with consensus, I am very concerned for our future. We have abandoned empiricism now in our school system, and as you conclude your piece, you refer to the need for worry to sharpen our need for change, you conclude with what is most worrisome about the direction of science: The implementation of emotion to guide our conclusions.

 

 https://youtu.be/_fQZfFy9cFs