> Rather than breezy armchair theories, about how about finding some plausible evidence that climate scientists are making this all up?
Too easy.
The lack of accurate prediction capabilities of their models. Also the lack of consistency with their models. In contrast, Solar Physicist Valentina Zharkova accurately predicted the sun going into a minimum using a Double Dynamo model with 4 eigenvectors which cohere & interfere. Her model also accurately predicted the cooling that occurred in the past few years due to the approaching solar minimum. In her free time, she created a more accurate model than anything the IPCC ever produced.
The lack of experimental evidence. The Electric Universe theory has experimental evidence with plasma interacting with atmospheric gasses. Also experimental evidence of cosmic radiation with heating water, seeding clouds, etc.
See Henrik Svensmark's reproducable physical experiments. It's not just a bunch of computer code which ultimately means nothing without experiment or predictive capabilities.
Despite Henrik Svensmark having compelling physical experimental evidence, which the IPCC models lack, he somehow lost his institutional funding. He is now independently funded.
Perhaps the science is not "settled" after all...Is that what the authorities told Galileo when he dared to claim that the Earth was not the center of the Universe?
I clicked on the youtube link -- and you found a solar physicist who supports your claims and aha, that proves the climate scientists are all wrong? Why does it seem that skeptical physicists are always taken as credible sources, yet climate scientists are subject to hyperskepticism?
The funny thing is that the Koch brothers funded Berkeley physicist and climate change skeptic Rich Muller a few years back. Muller, being an egotistical physicist, was sure that he was smarter than the muddle headed climatologists and would disprove their models and find all sorts of errors. After a year, Muller wrote up his summary ... find that indeed, AGW was a real thing, and the various correction factors that had been used by climatologists for thins like urban heat island effect were both justified and reasonable.
So, to make this more concise, why do you find that Solar Physicist Dr. Valentina Zharkova is to be trusted than the IPCC reports? You claim her model is far more accurate than anything the IPCC has done ... yet your link says her model was presented in 2015. Second, the IPCC models have be wrong only in that they have intentionally been conservative in their estimates (for political reasons). If you believe that the IPCC models have overestimated warming effects, then you have bought into a popular lie.
The are many other problems with your claims, but it would take more time than I care to invest in it considering the information is already presented in the IPCC reports and you refuse to accept them.
Too easy.
The lack of accurate prediction capabilities of their models. Also the lack of consistency with their models. In contrast, Solar Physicist Valentina Zharkova accurately predicted the sun going into a minimum using a Double Dynamo model with 4 eigenvectors which cohere & interfere. Her model also accurately predicted the cooling that occurred in the past few years due to the approaching solar minimum. In her free time, she created a more accurate model than anything the IPCC ever produced.
https://accordingtohoyt.com/2018/12/12/the-latest-on-the-dou...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NI1bQe8I4A
The lack of experimental evidence. The Electric Universe theory has experimental evidence with plasma interacting with atmospheric gasses. Also experimental evidence of cosmic radiation with heating water, seeding clouds, etc.
See Henrik Svensmark's reproducable physical experiments. It's not just a bunch of computer code which ultimately means nothing without experiment or predictive capabilities.
https://principia-scientific.org/strong-evidence-that-svensm...
Despite Henrik Svensmark having compelling physical experimental evidence, which the IPCC models lack, he somehow lost his institutional funding. He is now independently funded.
Perhaps the science is not "settled" after all...Is that what the authorities told Galileo when he dared to claim that the Earth was not the center of the Universe?