On 14 Jun 2019, Tim Streater wrote
(in t):

In iganews.com,
Keema's Nan wrote:

On 14 Jun 2019, Tim Streater wrote
(in t):

Since anyone disputing that climate "science" is "settled" gets threats
like those I mention above, I deduce that climate "science" owes more
to religion than real science.

Im not sure that I follow your logic.

Climate is not a hypothesis. It is a description of long term weather
parameters which prevail across certain regions of the planet.

Typically these parameters have been determined by data from 30 (preferably
more) years of observation. You cannot prove a climate to be untrue.

Areas of the globe might change from one climate description to another,
such
as from Tundra to Cold High Latitude (or whatever the current description
happens to be) but the individual climate parameters would remain.

Similarly, a Desert climate could envelop parts of the world which are
currently classed as Steppe or Savannah. However, if rainfall increased in a
Desert, that could become Steppe over the decades. That would be true
Climate
Change - not the snowflake version which relies on short term weather
extremes to persuade the ignorant MSM that the climate has changed.

What's a particular climate got to do with anything?

At least you have proved you know nothing on the subject.

Climate "science"
appears to claim that (1) the world is heating and that (2) this is
down to human activity.

That is a theory, but you have simply read the ignorant MSM which I mentioned
earlier.



(1) is ought to be a simple matter of measurement but there appear to
be those who say it is and those who say it isn't.

I dont think you have been concentrating. Climate is an average of many
many measurements.

The measurements are, for the most part, Weather.

As you seem unable to separate the two - there is no point in going any
further.



(2) is a matter of belief and is therefore a religious question.

Note that if you are a scientist who does not subscribe to this
orthodoxy, you won't get research grants and you will be lucky to get -
or keep - an academic position. Further, you'll be called a "denier",
just as Galileo was called a heretic.

A true scientist is a *skeptic* - skeptical about *everything*.

Is (2) above correct? How should I know, and how should anyone else. We
don't have a means of testing this hypothesis. It is therefore
unfalsifiable and is therefore not science. You can call it what you
like but not science, OK?